Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[matty_f]

He used the ticketus money to buy Gers.................


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-Ticketus-money-pay-bank.html

Well, who never saw that one coming!?:greengrin

If he gets done, is that Rangers properly screwed? What funding will they have going forward?

[DH1875]

All very quiet at Ibrox but couple of things wanted to raise.

I keep reading about how 1 week in the administrators still do not know the whereabouts of the £24.4M Ticketus money - well here is an idea for them, ask Craig Whyte! Pretty simple really - phone him up and ask him where it is? Why have they not done this and why has no journalist questioned this?

Whyte used the Ticketus money to but the club, everyone knows that. What I don't get though is why they gave him it. Has he got any connections with them? Who gives a company on the bring of administration/liquidation a £24 million loan. Has to be something dodgy going on there.

[EuanH78]

Whyte used the Ticketus money to but the club, everyone knows that. What I don't get though is why they gave him it. Has he got any connections with them? Who gives a company on the bring of administration/liquidation a £24 million loan. Has to be something dodgy going on there.

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the crux of the matter is he recieved borrowings against an asset he did not own, which I think in this case counts as major fraud.

Think Whyte might be going to jail. And as a plus Rangers brand gets even more toxic :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17105626


Rangers chairman Craig Whyte has resigned from three director posts in other companies so he can focus on the club's future.

The connected companies, from which Mr Whyte has also resigned, are Merchant Corporate Recovery and Merchant Strategic Renewal.


the wee dwarf must have had a great time thinking up names for his 2152387923645786534 companies :cb

[Spike Mandela]

Well, who never saw that one coming!?:greengrin

If he gets done, is that Rangers properly screwed? What funding will they have going forward?


Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the crux of the matter is he recieved borrowings against an asset he did not own, which I think in this case counts as major fraud.

Think Whyte might be going to jail. And as a plus Rangers brand gets even more toxic :greengrin

If that is the case, who owns Rangers and who is the preferred creditor?

[EuanH78]

If that is the case, who owns Rangers and who is the preferred creditor?

First question - Honestly dont have a clue what that would mean to ownership of Rangers. Put up for sale again maybe?

2nd - Dont think there is a legitimate one.

[truehibernian]

My crude take on it is that Ticketus, who already confirmed they don't offer loans, but buy assets, have effectively bought assets (tickets) that Whyte didn't own......he has used this money to both show Murray he has funds, and then paid off Lloyds. It surely depends on how much Rangers knew and in particular Murray I would have thought.....and what Whyte has told Ticketus.

He's kind of exposed himself though by stating on record he didn't use Ticketus money to buy the club......and where is the other £6 million ?

[jgl07]

First question - Honestly dont have a clue what that would mean to ownership of Rangers. Put up for sale again maybe?

2nd - Dont think there is a legitimate one.

There will be nothing to own when the club are liquidated to pay off the creditors (largely HMRC).

[EuanH78]

There will be nothing to own when the club are liquidated to pay off the creditors (largely HMRC).

I do hope your right.

For a while I was thinking that there was some sort of plan at work, for Rangers benefit (from Whyte). But as more of this unfolds it's beginning to seem like he was just chancing it and hoping for fair winds. Nae luck.

[jgl07]

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the crux of the matter is he recieved borrowings against an asset he did not own, which I think in this case counts as major fraud.

Think Whyte might be going to jail. And as a plus Rangers brand gets even more toxic :greengrin

Where does this leave Ally McCoist given his support for Whyte?

[cabbageandribs1875]

The chief sports writer at the Scottish daily mail is saying on Twitter that there'll be a story to "bury" Craig Whyte "and much more" in tomorrows daily mail....



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-season-ticket-money-pay-bank.html#ixzz1mxzl4HzQ


Sportsmail can reveal Whyte convinced Ticketus to advance him £24.4million on the proviso that he would then buy Rangers. That cash was deposited into a client account with his London-based lawyer Collyer Bristow on April 7.



ticketus have been very quiet throughout all this, i cant remember even reading a quote from them, i cant believe a professional business would give someone that amount of cash on the chance that whyte 'might' be the new owner in a months time
:rolleyes: some crazy stuff likes

[jgl07]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-season-ticket-money-pay-bank.html#ixzz1mxzl4HzQ


Sportsmail can reveal Whyte convinced Ticketus to advance him £24.4million on the proviso that he would then buy Rangers. That cash was deposited into a client account with his London-based lawyer Collyer Bristow on April 7.



ticketus have been very quiet throughout all this, i cant remember even reading a quote from them, i cant believe a professional business would give someone that amount of cash on the chance that whyte 'might' be the new owner in a months time
:rolleyes: some crazy stuff likes

It appears that the £18 million in cash from Ticketus was held in a solicitors client account with the instruction that it should not be released until Whyte took over Rangers. The deposit was sufficient to confirm to David Murray and Lloyds Bank Group that Whyte had the cash to take over the club. Whyte then paid £1 to Murray and the sale went through. Presumably the funds were then released to pay off Lloyds.

Whyte now had ownership of Rangers but lacked any working capital. He upped the advance sale to Ticketus from £18 to £24 million and also failed to pass on PAYE and National Insurance payments deducted from employees wages to HMRC and used the £7 million as working capital to finance the operation of the club. That was until the club was placed in administration with HMSO on his traill.

Whyte was now the preferred creditor with first call on the club's tangible assets (Ibrox and Murray Park) without putting in any of his own money (in the unlikely event that he has any).

In the event of Rangers winning the 'big tax case', the club emerges from administration debt free with Whyte in ownership. In the event that they lose the 'big tax case', Rangers are liquidated and Whyte ends up with Ibrox and Murray Park with all other creditors screwed. He can then start a debt free Pheonix and try and talk his way back into the SFA and SPL. Alternatively he can sell the real estate for development and pocket the cash leaving Ticketus to whistle for their £24 million in advance ticket sales for a liquidated club.

[banchoryhibs]

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the crux of the matter is he recieved borrowings against an asset he did not own, which I think in this case counts as major fraud.

Think Whyte might be going to jail. And as a plus Rangers brand gets even more toxic :greengrin

It would not be fraud if the money was received on the basis that it would be used to purchase Rangers, if this aspect was transparent then there's no offence. I suppose the mischief might lie in what written assurances were given to Rangers before he bought them.

[ballengeich]

In the event of Rangers winning the 'big tax case', the club emerges from administration debt free with Whyte in ownership. In the event that they lose the 'big tax case', Rangers are liquidated and Whyte ends up with Ibrox and Murray Park with all other creditors screwed. He can then start a debt free Pheonix and try and talk his way back into the SFA and SPL. Alternatively he can sell the real estate for development and pocket the cash leaving Ticketus to whistle for their £24 million in advance ticket sales for a liquidated club.

A good summary to which a third option can be added. He could sell Ibrox and Murray Park to a Rangers-minded group which the SFA and SPL would find more palatable than Whyte himself. Whyte walks away with millions from a £1 investment and a new debt-free Rangers appears in the SPL.

[CropleyWasGod]

If that is the case, who owns Rangers and who is the preferred creditor?

RFC Group still own 85% of Rangers.

There is no "preferred creditor". All creditors rank alongside each other.

There was a story out there that CW had security for his "loan". However, there can be no security if he isn't owed anything.

On the question of fraud, the only possible one I can see is if he held himself out to Ticketus as being "Rangers", and they bought the tickets from him, in the belief that that were true at the time. I find that difficult to believe, though. If it were, Ticketus need their backsides felt for not doing their due diligence properly.

[ancienthibby]

RFC Group still own 85% of Rangers.

There is no "preferred creditor". All creditors rank alongside each other.

There was a story out there that CW had security for his "loan". However, there can be no security if he isn't owed anything.

On the question of fraud, the only possible one I can see is if he held himself out to Ticketus as being "Rangers", and they bought the tickets from him, in the belief that that were true at the time. I find that difficult to believe, though. If it were, Ticketus need their backsides felt for not doing their due diligence properly.

Here's the Daily Mail's take on the Ticketus deal!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-season-ticket-money-pay-bank.html

Beeb Radio reported yesterday that his stockbroking firm, Pritchard, were accused of using client funds to pay their own expenses. Fraud or what?

The nooses are tightening!:greengrin

[ScottB]

Here's the Daily Mail's take on the Ticketus deal!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2104025/Craig-Whyte-used-24m-season-ticket-money-pay-bank.html

Beeb Radio reported yesterday that his stockbroking firm, Pritchard, were accused of using client funds to pay their own expenses. Fraud or what?

The nooses are tightening!:greengrin

Could be the flaw in his plan, clearly he is an expert operator when it comes to getting cash out of failing businesses, but I doubt he's ever had to deal with the sort of scrutiny he is now attracting, the media will be out in force looking for the slightest bit of dirt on this guy now and it could well be what blows his plans out the water...

[CropleyWasGod]

Could be the flaw in his plan, clearly he is an expert operator when it comes to getting cash out of failing businesses, but I doubt he's ever had to deal with the sort of scrutiny he is now attracting, the media will be out in force looking for the slightest bit of dirt on this guy now and it could well be what blows his plans out the water...

IMO, what blew the plan was Rangers not getting CL football. Had they done so, it would have been easier to pay HMRC for the current liabilities, and to repay him/his company for the Ticketus scam.

[Newry Hibs]

A good summary to which a third option can be added. He could sell Ibrox and Murray Park to a Rangers-minded group which the SFA and SPL would find more palatable than Whyte himself. Whyte walks away with millions from a £1 investment and a new debt-free Rangers appears in the SPL.

Would the Rangers-minded group need to find the money to buy these though??? Presumably if there is a backer with the money, then that's OK. Also if they win the 'big tax' case and don't owe the £49m - then that's OK as well. So it would therefore be that they owe 'only' the £9m. A future funding problem would be that for a few years any money in from future season tickets would go straight to Ticketus, therefore limiting their income?

Hopefully they lose the 'big tax' case and go under. (Would it be worth us taxpayers losing £49m??). I can't see the big panic about the future of Scottish football. Worst case would be the new Rangers being in Div 3 and out of the SPL for 3 years while they bolster the lower leagues with some gate receipts. Surely 'we' (current SPL) can survive for 3 years without them.

[johnbc70]

Surely it is fraud to buy a company with its own assets, that is what he has done? He bought the club using its own funds/assets which where not his.

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely it is fraud to buy a company with its own assets, that is what he has done? He bought the club using its own funds/assets which where not his.

He didn't, though.

The cost of buying the company (or Murray's shares in it) was £1.

He used the Ticketus money (apparently) to pay off Lloyds. In other words, used one asset to pay off a liability.

[jgl07]

A good summary to which a third option can be added. He could sell Ibrox and Murray Park to a Rangers-minded group which the SFA and SPL would find more palatable than Whyte himself. Whyte walks away with millions from a £1 investment and a new debt-free Rangers appears in the SPL.

The only flaw in all of the scenarios is the Ticketus deal. They will be looking for much of the season ticket income from Rangers for the next four years in the vent that the club continues or come after Whyte in the event that it does not.

[Newry Hibs]

He didn't, though.

The cost of buying the company (or Murray's shares in it) was £1.

He used the Ticketus money (apparently) to pay off Lloyds. In other words, used one asset to pay off a liability.

So basically Rangers owe Ticketus what used to be owed to Lloyds? Ticketus are presumably happy enough to get their money via season tickets. So if there was no fraud etc involved, it's just that pesky £9m owed in Tax and VAT etc that is Rangers problem (and the possibility of £49m debt as well)? What if a fan wins £9m on the lottery and gives that to RFC - are they in the clear (kind of). Admittedly having to cut their cloth for a few years.

[ano hibby]

He didn't, though.

The cost of buying the company (or Murray's shares in it) was £1.

He used the Ticketus money (apparently) to pay off Lloyds. In other words, used one asset to pay off a liability.

But surely an asset he didnt own at the time. Ticketus role in this looks decidedly ropey too.

[jgl07]

So basically Rangers owe Ticketus what used to be owed to Lloyds? Ticketus are presumably happy enough to get their money via season tickets. So if there was no fraud etc involved, it's just that pesky £9m owed in Tax and VAT etc that is Rangers problem (and the possibility of £49m debt as well)? What if a fan wins £9m on the lottery and gives that to RFC - are they in the clear (kind of). Admittedly having to cut their cloth for a few years.

Apart from having next to no season ticket cash for the next four years.

[Newry Hibs]

Apart from having next to no season ticket cash for the next four years.

Suits me. Maybe a bit more of a level playing field. Maybe even no guarantee of Champions league etc which means less money and a vicious circle (a bit like all other clubs).

Here's hoping any lottery winners don't have a Blue nose and they lose the 'big tax' case and they get screwed for not paying the £9m.

[cabbageandribs1875]

In the event of Rangers winning the 'big tax case', the club emerges from administration debt free with Whyte in ownership. In the event that they lose the 'big tax case', Rangers are liquidated and Whyte ends up with Ibrox and Murray Park with all other creditors screwed. He can then start a debt free Pheonix and try and talk his way back into the SFA and SPL. Alternatively he can sell the real estate for development and pocket the cash leaving Ticketus to whistle for their £24 million in advance ticket sales for a liquidated club.


a win win then, sickening :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

But surely an asset he didnt own at the time. Ticketus role in this looks decidedly ropey too.

It's only fraud if there has been some sort of deception. I can only see Ticketus as having possibly been deceived, but doesn't seem likely to me.

[Part/Time Supporter]

IMO, what blew the plan was Rangers not getting CL football. Had they done so, it would have been easier to pay HMRC for the current liabilities, and to repay him/his company for the Ticketus scam.

I think his idea was that the big tax case would have ruled at some point last year against Rangers, then he could have folded the company and blamed Murray. Instead he has run out of money first.

[ancienthibby]

Suits me. Maybe a bit more of a level playing field. Maybe even no guarantee of Champions league etc which means less money and a vicious circle (a bit like all other clubs).

Here's hoping any lottery winners don't have a Blue nose and they lose the 'big tax' case and they get screwed for not paying the £9m.

Daily ****** reporting that one of his newly appointed (non-executive) directors of RFC took £185k for just nine months work, including one bill for £85k.

Sun also reports that the axe will fall first on a Mr Bartley.:agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Daily ****** reporting that one of his newly appointed (non-executive) directors of RFC took £185k for just nine months work, including one bill for £85k.

****** also reports that the axe will fall first on a Mr Bartley.:agree:

The interesting point for me in that (other than that I am charging too little :greengrin) is the mention of Close Brothers, a finance company.

When I dug into the question of who had what security, the only charge mentioned at Companies House was one in favour of Close Brothers. It seems that they have security over the catering equipment at Ibrox.

How much is a pie-warmer worth?

[StevieC]

It's only fraud if there has been some sort of deception. I can only see Ticketus as having possibly been deceived, but doesn't seem likely to me.

Didn't he deceive Murray though, by claiming that the £18m was his rather than it actually being 3 years worth of season tickets?

And if that was viewed as deception could it invalidate his ownership?

[greenginger]

I see the petition to Wind-up HOMFC is back up at the Court of Session today ( unstarred motion )

I guess its just to dismiss the motion this time as they say they have paid their taxes.

Of course there could have been a glitch in the Money from Kaunus route.:tee hee:

[CropleyWasGod]

Didn't he deceive Murray though, by claiming that the £18m was his rather than it actually being 3 years worth of season tickets?

And if that was viewed as deception could it invalidate his ownership?

I thought someone might say this, Stevie.

My suspicion (without proof, of course, just a hunch) is that Murray knew what Whyte was up to. Murray was so keen to get rid of the club (and, IIRC, there were no other buyers around) that he turned a blind eye to the scam.

In other words, no deception. But, would you get SDM to admit it? :rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

I think his idea was that the big tax case would have ruled at some point last year against Rangers, then he could have folded the company and blamed Murray. Instead he has run out of money first.

:agree:

[Peevemor]

I thought someone might say this, Stevie.

My suspicion (without proof, of course, just a hunch) is that Murray knew what Whyte was up to. Murray was so keen to get rid of the club (and, IIRC, there were no other buyers around) that he turned a blind eye to the scam.

In other words, no deception. But, would you get SDM to admit it? :rolleyes:

At very least he would have known about the Ticketus deal.

[CropleyWasGod]

At very least he would have known about the Ticketus deal.

:agree:

IIRC... and I haven't got time to look... there was a sub-committee of the RFC Board looking at the deal on the table at the time. I am pretty sure that a few (most?) of them didn't like it. Not that it mattered, of course, it was always going to be SDM's decision as the major shareholder.

Did a couple not resign over it? :confused:

[StevieC]

But, would you get SDM to admit it? :rolleyes:

So if SDM denies any knowledge of the Ticketus deal (regardless of whether or not he actually knew) then that "could" constitute deception?

The fact that the money had to actually be transfered into an account prior to the deal happening would probably leave SDM in the clear.

The question is though, if it is viewed as deception where would that put things?

[CropleyWasGod]

So if SDM denies any knowledge of the Ticketus deal (regardless of whether or not he actually knew) then that "could" constitute deception?

The fact that the money had to actually be transfered into an account prior to the deal happening would probably leave SDM in the clear.

The question is though, if it is viewed as deception where would that put things?

CW in the dock for fraud, probably.

But I doubt if SDM would want to have the deal reversed. Would you? :greengrin

[WeAreHibs]

It was suggested to me this morning that, as they have been very quiet and relaxed, perhaps Ticketus have been sold Ibrox as security for the length of the agreement and for a nominal sum. Can you imagine the response if this is the case?

[ancienthibby]

So if SDM denies any knowledge of the Ticketus deal (regardless of whether or not he actually knew) then that "could" constitute deception?

The fact that the money had to actually be transfered into an account prior to the deal happening would probably leave SDM in the clear.

The question is though, if it is viewed as deception where would that put things?

Surely either Ticketus was completely out-foxed by an outsider (CW) who owned not one share in RFC at the time and/or someone inside RFC was compliant to at least one of these outside parties.:devil:

[jonty]

Tom English is online now discussing the 'crisis' at Rangers.

It's pretty simple. Liquidated them. Crisis over. Simples.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/webchats

[StevieC]

But I doubt if SDM would want to have the deal reversed. Would you? :greengrin

They are in administration so there's no deal reversing to be done, the administrators are effectively the current "owners". :wink:

[Peevemor]

So if SDM denies any knowledge of the Ticketus deal (regardless of whether or not he actually knew) then that "could" constitute deception?

The fact that the money had to actually be transfered into an account prior to the deal happening would probably leave SDM in the clear.

The question is though, if it is viewed as deception where would that put things?

For me it's unimaginable that Ticketus would hand over £18m to Whyte (who at that time had no official position at Rangers) without contacting the club.

Do you think if I tell my bank manager that I'm going to buy microsoft, he'll lend me a few million quid in the meantime?

[CropleyWasGod]

They are in administration so there's no deal reversing to be done, the administrators are effectively the current "owners". :wink:

Dunno about that. They are acting on behalf of the creditors and shareholders, of which CW/RFC Group are one.

[CropleyWasGod]

Tom English is online now discussing the 'crisis' at Rangers.

It's pretty simple. Liquidated them. Crisis over. Simples.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/webchats

And write off most of the tax?

[jgl07]

So if SDM denies any knowledge of the Ticketus deal (regardless of whether or not he actually knew) then that "could" constitute deception?

The fact that the money had to actually be transfered into an account prior to the deal happening would probably leave SDM in the clear.

The question is though, if it is viewed as deception where would that put things?

The whole point of David Murray selling the club shares for £1 was to get the Lloyds Bank Group overdraft cleared. Presumably Murray could have gone to Ticketus and obtained the cash himself to pay off Lloyds.

I get the impression that David Murray was shown the account balance and this persuaded him that Whyte was good for the money. I don't really see how Murray could be implicated here. He will presumably argue that he was conned by Whyte.

The other aspect of this deal is the pressure exerted by Lloyds Bank Group to push the deal through probably meant that the details were not checked as closely as they should have been.

[JimBHibees]

For me it's unimaginable that Ticketus would hand over £18m to Whyte (who at that time had no official position at Rangers) without contacting the club.

Do you think if I tell my bank manager that I'm going to buy microsoft, he'll lend me a few million quid in the meantime?

More than likely they may have made the sum available to him to strengthen his bid to takeover on the proviso he would only get it if he was indeed successful in taking over the club.

[Peevemor]

More than likely they may have made the sum available to him to strengthen his bid to takeover on the proviso he would only get it if he was indeed successful in taking over the club.

But it's been reported that Whyte showed Murray the balance in his account in order to get approval for the takeover.

[jonty]

And write off most of the tax?

Are we likely to see any of it anyway?
the only way they'll generate enough to pay off the tax is if they're allowed ot continue in top flight football.
If they're allowed to continue in top flight football, then what message does that send to other football clubs?

"Overspend, dont pay your taxes? we'll let you pay it up over x years"

Get rid of them and set an example.

[EuanH78]

Surely either Ticketus was completely out-foxed by an outsider (CW) who owned not one share in RFC at the time and/or someone inside RFC was compliant to at least one of these outside parties.:devil:

Seems like it. It's all getting very murky... I love it.

But, if CW's plan was to liquidate RFC because of the Big tax case before he ran out of money, why didnt he just concede it?

If CW is not owed anything, and ticketus are not owed anything (yet, being as they hold an 'asset' and not a debt. is this right?) then the taxman is the major creditor (even before the big tax case outcome, right?) surely this makes a CVA unlikely?

Also, if Rangers win the big tax case they can trade their way out of administration, albeit with reduced income from season tickets, much reduced wage bill and paying off their bills as they go. Win for everyone else in the SPL?

Or, they lose the tax case and liquidation is a racing certainty right? with no securities over Ibrox, Murray Park or anything else (except the catering equipment :greengrin ) CW loses control of Rangers, potential for fraud cases, loads of muck raking and back biting from all involved. Ticketus become a creditor to be paid out of assets sold, along with HMRC + other small change (relatively) creditors. Ibrox and Murray park 'have' to be sold to highest bidder not neccessarily NewHun.co. Win, Win for everyone right?

[degenerated]

The interesting point for me in that (other than that I am charging too little :greengrin) is the mention of Close Brothers, a finance company.

When I dug into the question of who had what security, the only charge mentioned at Companies House was one in favour of Close Brothers. It seems that they have security over the catering equipment at Ibrox.

How much is a pie-warmer worth?

from the daily ******

Close Brothers board member Ray Greenshields is chairman of a firm called Octopus VCT3, part of the company who own Ticketus.

[Seveno]

The only flaw in all of the scenarios is the Ticketus deal. They will be looking for much of the season ticket income from Rangers for the next four years in the vent that the club continues or come after Whyte in the event that it does not.

No problem for Ticketus though. White claimed to have 'underwritten' the deal from his own wealth. Or should that be from the personal wealth of his clients in his Bournemouth stock rocking company ?

[lapsedhibee]

Surely it is fraud to buy a company with its own assets, that is what he has done?
Not much of a crime, that. Isn't it what everyone who takes out a mortgage to buy a house does? Buy the house, using the house to get the money? :dunno:

[Peevemor]

Not much of a crime, that. Isn't it what everyone who takes out a mortgage to buy a house does? Buy the house, using the house to get the money? :dunno:

Except banks don't secure mortgages against houses that about to collapse.

[Benny Brazil]

More murky revelations in the Daily Not-So-Ranger today:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2012/02/21/rangers-in-crisis-tax-specialist-raked-in-160k-in-just-eight-months-as-a-director-at-ibrox-86908-23759285/

And sources close to the investigations believe there will be more revelations as the layers are peeled away from Whyte’s regime.

It’s understood administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, and officials from HMRC, are shocked by some of the details already uncovered.

They are determined to get to the truth behind Rangers’ slide into administration, although it will take some time to follow all the paper trails.

Whyte, Betts and Gary Withey, who is still Rangers’ company secretary, will be asked to account for every penny.

Betts, 49, is credited with more than 30 years’ experience in banking and finance, and is a specialist in VAT and PAYE problems.

He formed Primary Asset Finance in 2005. The firm’s website boasted of providing “hassle-free solutions” and had a section titled “HMRC Arrears/Problems.

The site was shut down the day after Rangers went into administration.

Primary said on the website that they were sponsored by Close Brothers, a finance company.

Close Brothers board member Ray Greenshields is chairman of a firm called Octopus VCT3, part of the company who own Ticketus

The whole thing stinks - and I hope every single detail is uncovered and reported on.

[HFC 0-7]

Are we likely to see any of it anyway?
the only way they'll generate enough to pay off the tax is if they're allowed ot continue in top flight football.
If they're allowed to continue in top flight football, then what message does that send to other football clubs?

"Overspend, dont pay your taxes? we'll let you pay it up over x years"

Get rid of them and set an example.

How much money would be made if they sold everything, land players, the lot? I would imagine they would make quite a bit of money.

[Hibs Class]

But it's been reported that Whyte showed Murray the balance in his account in order to get approval for the takeover.

I thought the money was in a solicitor's account and was conditional on Whyte buying rangers, but that was then the balance which he showed the club and which he represented as his own money.

[ancienthibby]

SFA appoint Panel of inquiry to report within two weeks:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17110781

Probably all Rainchurs supporters!

Also reported that one Brian Kennedy (remember him?) of Sale Sharks has expressed in acquiring RFC from the admins!

[jonty]

How much money would be made if they sold everything, land players, the lot? I would imagine they would make quite a bit of money.
That would depend on who owns it.
If HMRC can claim it and sell it on, I doubt they'd get the amount they're due.
Who'd want a listed building in Govan, except a football team?

The housing market is still on it's arse - so they'd not get a lot for murray park (apart from the farmer, or golf club next door).
Opened 11 years ago (wikipedia is great :rolleyes:) it's hardly state of the art (East mains looks a lot bigger, for a start).

Could hibs.net club together and buy it :greengrin


They might get something from a players firesale, but they'd all have to move down south or abroad - no-one up here would pay their wages.
I seriously doubt they'd get anything near 45 million.

[Andy74]

Except banks don't secure mortgages against houses that about to collapse.

Where have you been the last few years? :greengrin

[Peevemor]

Where have you been the last few years? :greengrin

Under a sturdy table with a stock of tinned food.

[jonty]

Some belters from Whyte

Craig Whyte statement on #Rangers: "I'm on the hook with Ticketus for 27.5m pounds in guarantees and cash"

Craig Whyte on #Rangers: Any suggestion that I've been involved in illegal activity is "clearly ludicrous"

Craig Whyte statement on #Rangers: "I regret not making the Ticketus arrangements more transparent"

Craig Whyte statement on #Rangers: if he regains control, he'll consider giving a majority stake to a supporters' foundation.

Craig Whyte statement on #Rangers: if HMRC was doing deals on tax with big companies like Vodafone, why so inflexible over Rangers?

[Barney McGrew]

Also reported that one Brian Kennedy (remember him?) of Sale Sharks has expressed in acquiring RFC from the admins!

Ah yes, good old Mr Kennedy the double glazing salesman, ex-Stockport County owner and one time suitor for our own esteemed institution.

After what he did to Stockport, he and Craig Whyte would make good bedfellows.

[jonty]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298343-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-admits-using-24m-season-ticket-cash-to-fund-takeover/


"Any suggestion that I am trying to make a fast buck or have indulged in illegal manoeuvring is clearly ludicrous."
:faf:

[Benny Brazil]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298343-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-admits-using-24m-season-ticket-cash-to-fund-takeover/


:faf:

The guy is starting to sound like Mad Vlad.

[ancienthibby]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298343-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-admits-using-24m-season-ticket-cash-to-fund-takeover/


:faf:

So how can someone (CW) who was not a shareholder and not a director of RFC make a financial arrangement (that was concluded!) with an outside company to factor the assets (ST income) of RFC to another party??:rolleyes:

CWG, CavG where are you?? Oh, and SDM MUST have known!

[Spike Mandela]

Administrators statement............

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2618921

[CropleyWasGod]

So how can someone (CW) who was not a shareholder and not a director of RFC make a financial arrangement (that was concluded!) with an outside company to factor the assets (ST income) of RFC to another party??:rolleyes:

CWG, CavG where are you?? Oh, and SDM MUST have known!

I'm here :greengrin... just got back in for my daily fix of Hun..The Movie.

My position, m'lud, remains unchanged from earlier today. SDM must have known, and allowed the Ticketus/CW/Lloyds settlement to happen just to allow him to get out.

[ancienthibby]

Administrators statement............

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2618921

In other words, they are as confused (or refusing to reveal what they really know) as everyone else!:faf:

You couldnae make this up!

[ancienthibby]

I'm here :greengrin... just got back in for my daily fix of Hun..The Movie.

My position, m'lud, remains unchanged from earlier today. SDM must have known, and allowed the Ticketus/CW/Lloyds settlement to happen just to allow him to get out.

Keep this up, young man, and Lord Nimmo Smith will be calling you to his inquiry!:greengrin

[green glory]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298343-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-admits-using-24m-season-ticket-cash-to-fund-takeover/


:faf:

The most interesting and humourous part of his statement is the unwillingness of HMRC to budge one inch and even consider some kind of payment plan. It seems they want it all, and at once. :agree:

That OF firm game next month might not be an issue. I'm thinking scenes of mass grief as the bulldozers level Ibrox. One can hope. :cb

[Spike Mandela]

Compare todays Whyte statement with his statement below on 31st Jan. He is flailing from one lie to another......

http://videocelts.com/2012/01/blogs/craig-whyte-fires-back-at-the-daily-record

[Part/Time Supporter]

The guy is starting to sound like Mad Vlad.

That's grossly unfair...

to Romanov.

:duck:

[Seveno]

That's grossly unfair...

to Romanov.

:duck:

Vlad was just the warm-up act for this guy. It gets better by the day. :lolrangers:

[CropleyWasGod]

The most interesting and humourous part of his statement is the unwillingness of HMRC to budge one inch and even consider some kind of payment plan. It seems they want it all, and at once. :agree:

That OF firm game next month might not be an issue. I'm thinking scenes of mass grief as the bulldozers level Ibrox. One can hope. :cb

I think they will move. They are just not moving yet. They will wait until the Tribunal has made up its mind.

I have had the conversation with HMRC many tmes where the words "blood" and "stone" have been used. They are much more commercially aware than they used to be.

Quite how much they will move remains to be seen. I have never seen a payment plan of (as has been suggested) ten years, but then I have never seen a liability of this sum where there are insufficient assets to cover it, but plenty potential future income.

[cabbageandribs1875]

craig shy*e is madder than a box of frogs





little :fibber: :lolrangers: weasel

[ancienthibby]

Beeb Radio reporting live that CW had offered to pay the back PAYE/NIC taxes at £500k a month and the £48million (or so) EBT tax problem at £2 million a year.:faf:

Ma ribs are burstin'

[Andy74]

Beeb Radio reporting live that CW had offered to pay the back PAYE/NIC taxes at £500k a month and the £48million (or so) EBT tax problem at £2 million a year.:faf:

Probably not far from what they will have to agree if they want to see any of it.

[PaulSmith]

Beeb Radio reporting live that CW had offered to pay the back PAYE/NIC taxes at £500k a month and the £48million (or so) EBT tax problem at £2 million a year.:faf:

Ma ribs are burstin'

So £8m a year in back taxes, plus all the other running costs against a back drop of a £10m shortfall already. In essence he thinks he could find £18m per year from their current turnover. Nuts.

[ancienthibby]

Probably not far from what they will have to agree if they want to see any of it.

CW has already admitted that (before the crisis) they (RFC) already had a £10 million hole in their annual cash flow!!:na na:

[Seveno]

So £8m a year in back taxes, plus all the other running costs against a back drop of a £10m shortfall already. In essence he thinks he could find £18m per year from their current turnover. Nuts.

Don't forget the season ticket money going out the door to Ticketus.

[richard_pitts]

I think they will move. They are just not moving yet. They will wait until the Tribunal has made up its mind.

I have had the conversation with HMRC many tmes where the words "blood" and "stone" have been used. They are much more commercially aware than they used to be.

Quite how much they will move remains to be seen. I have never seen a payment plan of (as has been suggested) ten years, but then I have never seen a liability of this sum where there are insufficient assets to cover it, but plenty potential future income.

Thing for HMRC is if they do budge, a large number of other teams will use administration as a tax dodge. They have an eye on the bigger picture and it doesn#t involve Rangers :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Thing for HMRC is if they do budge, a large number of other teams will use administration as a tax dodge. They have an eye on the bigger picture and it doesn#t involve Rangers :wink:

Oh, agreed. The Rangers case, in terms of EBT's and how much HMRC are willing to settle for, is critical to their treatment of other clubs in the same boat (or submarine:greengrin). Pretty soon, there will be many club chairmen and HMRC executives reaching for either the champagne or the bottle of pills.

[ballengeich]

Except banks don't secure mortgages against houses that about to collapse.

Actually they did. That's largely why we've had a recession.

[steakbake]

Don't forget the season ticket money going out the door to Ticketus.

They'll need a full house every time they're at home and some kind of European run to be able to do that.

I think until now, I've always thought they'll limp on. Now though, I'm not so sure...

[Seveno]

They'll need a full house every time they're at home and some kind of European run to be able to do that.

I think until now, I've always thought they'll limp on. Now though, I'm not so sure...

And with a much reduced players budget, performances will be poorer and we know what the Hun fans do when that happens.

[Seveno]

Richard Gordon as just said that the Ticketus deal amounts to 23,000 to 27,000 seats per season. Not one penny to Rangers until the crowd exceeds those figures.

I wonder if he sold the pies in advance as well ? :cb

[Hibrandenburg]

What if the huns don't sell any season tickets and only sell on a match to match basis. Do Ticketus only get their dabs on season ticket money or do they get a slice of all ticket sales?

[CropleyWasGod]

What if the huns don't sell any season tickets and only sell on a match to match basis. Do Ticketus only get their dabs on season ticket money or do they get a slice of all ticket sales?

In one of CW's pronouncements today..... not that I am inclined to believe him :greengrin... he said that he had "guaranteed" the sales to the tune of £23.5m. I guess he means he has underwritten them.

Which means, if the fans want to get some sort of revenge on him..... they should boycott all ST sales. That would sting....

[Hibrandenburg]

In one of CW's pronouncements today..... not that I am inclined to believe him :greengrin... he said that he had "guaranteed" the sales to the tune of £23.5m. I guess he means he has underwritten them.

Which means, if the fans want to get some sort of revenge on him..... they should boycott all ST sales. That would sting....

Was sort of what I was thinking...shhhhh! :o)

[One Day Soon]

It appears that the £18 million in cash from Ticketus was held in a solicitors client account with the instruction that it should not be released until Whyte took over Rangers. The deposit was sufficient to confirm to David Murray and Lloyds Bank Group that Whyte had the cash to take over the club. Whyte then paid £1 to Murray and the sale went through. Presumably the funds were then released to pay off Lloyds.

Whyte now had ownership of Rangers but lacked any working capital. He upped the advance sale to Ticketus from £18 to £24 million and also failed to pass on PAYE and National Insurance payments deducted from employees wages to HMRC and used the £7 million as working capital to finance the operation of the club. That was until the club was placed in administration with HMSO on his traill.

Whyte was now the preferred creditor with first call on the club's tangible assets (Ibrox and Murray Park) without putting in any of his own money (in the unlikely event that he has any).

In the event of Rangers winning the 'big tax case', the club emerges from administration debt free with Whyte in ownership. In the event that they lose the 'big tax case', Rangers are liquidated and Whyte ends up with Ibrox and Murray Park with all other creditors screwed. He can then start a debt free Pheonix and try and talk his way back into the SFA and SPL. Alternatively he can sell the real estate for development and pocket the cash leaving Ticketus to whistle for their £24 million in advance ticket sales for a liquidated club.

This could be the final nail in the coffin. HMRC are pretty hard headed and notoriously unwilling to concede ground or negotiate, but Her Majesty's Stationery Office make the tax boys look like pussycats. Someone's going to get their jotters.

[CropleyWasGod]

Richard Gordon as just said that the Ticketus deal amounts to 23,000 to 27,000 seats per season. Not one penny to Rangers until the crowd exceeds those figures.

I wonder if he sold the pies in advance as well ? :cb

The catering equipment is the subject of a security :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

This could be the final nail in the coffin. HMRC are pretty hard headed and notoriously unwilling to concede ground or negotiate, but Her Majesty's Stationery Office make the tax boys look like pussycats. Someone's going to get their jotters.

Aye, its a difficult paper trail they have to follow. Who is the ruler? Are the accounts set square? Do the administrators have the correct moral compass to guide them through, or is all this type of work just their staple diet? The good thing is that the Huns'll get a good ream.

[degenerated]

The catering equipment is the subject of a security :greengrin

To a company with a director who is also on the board of the parent company of ticketus. So in essence whyte has also sold the pies :greengrin

[johnbc70]

So we know he lied when he originally denied he used the Ticketus money to buy the club, today he has admitted he did indeed use that money. Interview on Sky has said that is illegal to buy a business using the assets of that business, it is a breach of the Finance Assistance Rules.

I think it comes down to the fact that he paid £1 for the club, therefore he bought the club fair and square for £1 from SDM. SDM however would only sell him the club on the basis he proved his own wealth by depositing £18M into an account, this was done with the Ticketus money but SDM must have been under the impression it was his own money so he agreed to sell, when infact as we now know it was Rangers own season ticket money that was mortgaged to Ticketus. So SDM is the fool in this case as he sold him the club thinking he has his own wealth.

So looks like he bought the club in a fair manner, he has fooled SDM though as the money was not his in that account it was Rangers own money. So I think he has done nothing wrong in the actual buying of the club? The non payment of tax and national insurance etc is another matter though.

Its great entertainment though!

[DH1875]

Can someone explain to me why Ticketus are due all the money. If all their other creditors have to take a hit and are only paid pennies for pounds why don't Ticketus? Also, if they did go into liquidation how do Ticketus get the money back :confused:.

Lastly, why do people keep going on about Rangers selling Murray Park? Does Murray not actually own it and not Rangers?

[CropleyWasGod]

So we know he lied when he originally denied he used the Ticketus money to buy the club, today he has admitted he did indeed use that money. Interview on Sky has said that is illegal to buy a business using the assets of that business, it is a breach of the Finance Assistance Rules.

I think it comes down to the fact that he paid £1 for the club, therefore he bought the club fair and square for £1 from SDM. SDM however would only sell him the club on the basis he proved his own wealth by depositing £18M into an account, this was done with the Ticketus money but SDM must have been under the impression it was his own money so he agreed to sell, when infact as we now know it was Rangers own season ticket money that was mortgaged to Ticketus. So SDM is the fool in this case as he sold him the club thinking he has his own wealth.

So looks like he bought the club in a fair manner, he has fooled SDM though as the money was not his in that account it was Rangers own money. So I think he has done nothing wrong in the actual buying of the club? The non payment of tax and national insurance etc is another matter though.

Its great entertainment though!

You really think so? :wink:

[ancienthibby]

So we know he lied when he originally denied he used the Ticketus money to buy the club, today he has admitted he did indeed use that money. Interview on Sky has said that is illegal to buy a business using the assets of that business, it is a breach of the Finance Assistance Rules.

I think it comes down to the fact that he paid £1 for the club, therefore he bought the club fair and square for £1 from SDM. SDM however would only sell him the club on the basis he proved his own wealth by depositing £18M into an account, this was done with the Ticketus money but SDM must have been under the impression it was his own money so he agreed to sell, when infact as we now know it was Rangers own season ticket money that was mortgaged to Ticketus. So SDM is the fool in this case as he sold him the club thinking he has his own wealth.

So looks like he bought the club in a fair manner, he has fooled SDM though as the money was not his in that account it was Rangers own money. So I think he has done nothing wrong in the actual buying of the club? The non payment of tax and national insurance etc is another matter though.

Its great entertainment though!

That's how I see it too, John!

What remains amazing is that SDM apparently (:faf:) did not know his own company assets were being used by an unconnected outside party to pay-off bank debts that he could not!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Can someone explain to me why Ticketus are due all the money. If all their other creditors have to take a hit and are only paid pennies for pounds why don't Ticketus? Also, if they did go into liquidation how do Ticketus get the money back :confused:.

Lastly, why do people keep going on about Rangers selling Murray Park? Does Murray not actually own it and not Rangers?

Rangers aren't due anything to Ticketus.

Ticketus bought season tickets for the next 4 years (3 if you believe CW). They will then sell these to supporters, at a profit.

As for the liquidation question.... if these tickets are worthless in a future RFC scenario, they appear to have been underwritten by CW.

I thought RFC owns MP.... the admins seem to think so, too.

[johnbc70]

You really think so? :wink:

He will claim not to know where it came from, but yes he more than likely knew and turned a blind eye or did not care where it came from.

[oregonhibby]

I note according to the BBC a Hibs supporter is interested in Rangers. One Brian Kennedy!

[CropleyWasGod]

He will claim not to know where it came from, but yes he more than likely knew and turned a blind eye or did not care where it came from.

:agree:

[DH1875]

Rangers aren't due anything to Ticketus.Ticketus bought season tickets for the next 4 years (3 if you believe CW). They will then sell these to supporters, at a profit.As for the liquidation question.... if these tickets are worthless in a future RFC scenario, they appear to have been underwritten by CW.

Aye, cause Whytes got the money for 80,000 season tickets at £500 a pop :fibber:.

[Jonnyboy]

I note according to the BBC a Hibs supporter is interested in Rangers. One Brian Kennedy!

Indeed! Maybe he could do a Stockport County on them :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Aye, cause Whytes got the money for 80,000 season tickets at £500 a pop :fibber:.

Well, if he is giving Ticketus a guarantee, you would expect them to do some due diligence on him.

Just like SDM did :rolleyes:

[EuanH78]

Rangers aren't due anything to Ticketus.

Ticketus bought season tickets for the next 4 years (3 if you believe CW). They will then sell these to supporters, at a profit.

As for the liquidation question.... if these tickets are worthless in a future RFC scenario, they appear to have been underwritten by CW.

I thought RFC owns MP.... the admins seem to think so, too.

Seems legit to me :tee hee:

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/demotivational-posters-seems-legit31.jpg

[thekaratekid]

Apparently Rangers owned 16 shares in Arsenal. They probably held historical significance for the club.

Whyte sold them in December.

[Hibernia&Alba]

So we know he lied when he originally denied he used the Ticketus money to buy the club, today he has admitted he did indeed use that money. Interview on Sky has said that is illegal to buy a business using the assets of that business, it is a breach of the Finance Assistance Rules.

I think it comes down to the fact that he paid £1 for the club, therefore he bought the club fair and square for £1 from SDM. SDM however would only sell him the club on the basis he proved his own wealth by depositing £18M into an account, this was done with the Ticketus money but SDM must have been under the impression it was his own money so he agreed to sell, when infact as we now know it was Rangers own season ticket money that was mortgaged to Ticketus. So SDM is the fool in this case as he sold him the club thinking he has his own wealth.

So looks like he bought the club in a fair manner, he has fooled SDM though as the money was not his in that account it was Rangers own money. So I think he has done nothing wrong in the actual buying of the club? The non payment of tax and national insurance etc is another matter though.

Its great entertainment though!

That's how it looks. Whyte has invested the princely sum of wan poon in Rangers :greengrin. He's lied through his teeth about the funding of the payment to Lloyds and has been found out. He must have thought he'd make an absolute killing, potentially making millions for a one pound stake if the club comes out of administration debt free. And if they're liquidated, wouldn't Ibrox and other assets be his to sell off? A con man.

[Spike Mandela]

Tom English dissects the Whyte statement for the fabric of lies it is, great stuff...............

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/tom_english_sorry_whyte_wash_that_is_full_of_contr adictions_1_2130718

[Hibernia&Alba]

Tom English dissects the Whyte statement for the fabric of lies it is, great stuff...............

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/tom_english_sorry_whyte_wash_that_is_full_of_contr adictions_1_2130718

Thanks for the link. I defy anyone to read that without forming a grin as wide as the Forth Bridge :lolrangers:

[JeMeSouviens]

Tom English dissects the Whyte statement for the fabric of lies it is, great stuff...............

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/tom_english_sorry_whyte_wash_that_is_full_of_contr adictions_1_2130718

Hell hath no fury like a second rate hack scorned. English must feel a right tit given the amount of Whyte's PR he regurgitated last year. :wink:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Rule Britannia!
Craig Whyte smiles and waves
Britain never, never, never
Shall get paid!

[green glory]

Apparently CW has flogged the shares Rangers have held in Arsenal since the 1930's for 200 grand. The Teddy Bears on Verminmedia are very non-plussed indeed. Ho Ho.

[John_the_angus_hibby]

Ouch! :)

** Rangers 'treated fairly' over tax **
The tax authorities deny claims that Rangers Football Club is being treated unfairly over its tax debts.
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17127983 >


Sent from another universe!

[ano hibby]

Hell hath no fury like a second rate hack scorned. English must feel a right tit given the amount of Whyte's PR he regurgitated last year. :wink:
Correct, Whyte had him in his pocket for a while. This is the start of some decent revenge mind you:agree:
A worthwhile read.

[jgl07]

Rule Britannia!
Craig Whyte smiles and waves
Britain never, never, never
Shall get paid!

If Rangers get away with this the song will become:

Rule Britannia,
Britannia waives the rules

[Hibernia&Alba]

I had a read of a couple of Hun forums earlier, and it's like witnessing the collapse of the Third Reich :lolrangers:

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17128997

Can Craig Whyte account for his whereabouts?

[CropleyWasGod]

Apparently CW has flogged the shares Rangers have held in Arsenal since the 1930's for 200 grand. The Teddy Bears on Verminmedia are very non-plussed indeed. Ho Ho.

Actually, on a moral level, this is almost as bad as it gets for me. I struggle to find sympathy for the "wee arra people" mentality, but this shares things harks back to the days when there was a bit of dignity and morality about football.

CW really has sold off part of the club's heritage here, a part that they should feel proud of.

The ironic thing is that, according to Keith Jackson, he paid the cash into his stockbroking firm's account......

..............which has been frozen by the FSA. :rolleyes:

[easty]

Tom English dissects the Whyte statement for the fabric of lies it is, great stuff...............

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/tom_english_sorry_whyte_wash_that_is_full_of_contr adictions_1_2130718

I wouldn't particularly call it great....it borders on amateurish in my opinion. If someone had posted it on here as there own opinions/post then that would have been good, but for a 'journo' to pass that off as an article for a news website is pretty poor.

[Since90+2]

Apparently CW has flogged the shares Rangers have held in Arsenal since the 1930's for 200 grand. The Teddy Bears on Verminmedia are very non-plussed indeed. Ho Ho.

Im surprised that football clubs are allowed to hold shares in other clubs , does anyone know of any other examples of this?

[CropleyWasGod]

Im surprised that football clubs are allowed to hold shares in other clubs , does anyone know of any other examples of this?

There is probably a limit.

Rangers only had 22 shares in the Arse, and it was symbolic rather than commercial.

A bit like ma shares in Hubz...

[ancienthibby]

Im surprised that football clubs are allowed to hold shares in other clubs , does anyone know of any other examples of this?

It goes back more than 100 years though, so I'd imagine there's been some changes in the meantime.

If someone offered me £14,000 for each of my Hibs shares, I might just be tempted to sell one!:greengrin

On another matter, 'one booted-outed by CW' director, Dave King, seen leaving Castle Greyskull accompanied by the pie-munching manager.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/17130753

It's been a slow day for soap opera developments!:greengrin

[truehibernian]

News coming through that the SPL are going to investigate Rangers for alleged sectarian chanting against Kilmarnock......good....about time they get absolutely hammered, and hopefully yet more points docked or worse. Let's hear Salmond defend this 'institution' who on Saturday had thousands being 'institutionally sectarian'.

[CropleyWasGod]

News coming through that the SPL are going to investigate Rangers for alleged sectarian chanting against Kilmarnock......good....about time they get absolutely hammered, and hopefully yet more points docked or worse. Let's hear Salmond defend this 'institution' who on Saturday had thousands being 'institutionally sectarian'.

Kick a man when he's down, why don't they?



:greengrin

[Andy74]

Bad timing on our part to be p1sh. Could have been a big Champions league qualifying clash tonight!

[Andy74]

Kick a man when he's down, why don't they?



:greengrin

Why not? :greengrin

Seriously though, I think this will bring out the elements in the support that they have been trying (not oo much though) to keep under control.

There were certainly threads on their fans' sites to that effect that they might as well just do as they like.

The authorities need to make sure that they are still required to refrain from all this stuff whether they are goosed or not.

[truehibernian]

A further 20 point deduction would make it interesting.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

If Rangers get away with this the song will become:

Rule Britannia,
Britannia waives the rules

Nice one!

[PatHead]

Received the following email from Octopus today


We felt it appropriate to provide another update to the adviser community regarding Ticketus – one of the companies Octopus Protected EIS invests into – and the Rangers deal. The level of detail we can go into here is limited by the confidentiality clauses in the various Ticketus contracts and the ongoing administration process, but we’ll continue to provide updates when we can. The statement made last Friday explained that Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club. The current deal between Ticketus and Rangers was closed on 9 May 2011, several days after Craig Whyte purchased the club. To clarify, the funds paid by Ticketus were not a loan in any way either to Craig Whyte or Rangers, they were for the sole purpose of purchasing tickets from the then legal owners of the club.Extensive due diligence is performed on counterparties in every deal, and numerous potential scenarios are modelled and prepared for in the way the deal is structured. But as per our previous note it should be said that no trading activity is 100% risk-free and, whilst Octopus Protected EIS targets capital preservation, it cannot, and does not, guarantee it. However, our analysis of this situation and the various scenarios that may develop from here leave us comfortable with our position. A statement made by Craig Whyte yesterday (http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/298342-craig-whyte-statement-in-full/) provided more detail on some of the ‘additional protection’ that we described in our previous email.In summary, we continue to remain confident in the product, our approach to investment, and the ticketing model. We appreciate that the level of interest in this story can create challenges for you with your clients but we are working hard with all related parties to ensure that our side of the story is communicated appropriately and that some of the incorrect assumptions that have been made are corrected. We can assure you that we are providing you and our relationship managers with as much information as possible given the circumstances. However, if you do wish to discuss this further or if you have clients who are requesting further information, please speak to your relationship manager who will be happy to help where possible.

[CropleyWasGod]

Received the following email from Octopus today


We felt it appropriate to provide another update to the adviser community regarding Ticketus – one of the companies Octopus Protected EIS invests into – and the Rangers deal. The level of detail we can go into here is limited by the confidentiality clauses in the various Ticketus contracts and the ongoing administration process, but we’ll continue to provide updates when we can. The statement made last Friday explained that Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club. The current deal between Ticketus and Rangers was closed on 9 May 2011, several days after Craig Whyte purchased the club. To clarify, the funds paid by Ticketus were not a loan in any way either to Craig Whyte or Rangers, they were for the sole purpose of purchasing tickets from the then legal owners of the club.Extensive due diligence is performed on counterparties in every deal, and numerous potential scenarios are modelled and prepared for in the way the deal is structured. But as per our previous note it should be said that no trading activity is 100% risk-free and, whilst Octopus Protected EIS targets capital preservation, it cannot, and does not, guarantee it. However, our analysis of this situation and the various scenarios that may develop from here leave us comfortable with our position. A statement made by Craig Whyte yesterday (http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/298342-craig-whyte-statement-in-full/) provided more detail on some of the ‘additional protection’ that we described in our previous email.In summary, we continue to remain confident in the product, our approach to investment, and the ticketing model. We appreciate that the level of interest in this story can create challenges for you with your clients but we are working hard with all related parties to ensure that our side of the story is communicated appropriately and that some of the incorrect assumptions that have been made are corrected. We can assure you that we are providing you and our relationship managers with as much information as possible given the circumstances. However, if you do wish to discuss this further or if you have clients who are requesting further information, please speak to your relationship manager who will be happy to help where possible.



Interesting stuff... thank you.

That should put to bed all the criticism levelled at Ticketus.

However, it also suggests that CW is telling the truth when he says that he has guaranteed the Ticketus money.

So.... what's your take on the scenario I suggested earlier? If the fans refuse to buy season tickets, does that leave CW picking up the tab?

[Lost_Mackem]

Are the fans really that thick that they will chant banned and offensive songs at a game? Morons.

[PatHead]

Interesting stuff... thank you.

That should put to bed all the criticism levelled at Ticketus.

However, it also suggests that CW is telling the truth when he says that he has guaranteed the Ticketus money.

So.... what's your take on the scenario I suggested earlier? If the fans refuse to buy season tickets, does that leave CW picking up the tab?


Certainly looks like it but I wonder where he would get money from? Does he have 24million mates who would give him a loan of a pound?

[CropleyWasGod]

Certainly looks like it but I wonder where he would get money from? Does he have 24million mates who would give him a loan of a pound?

LOL...

That said, Ticketus are smart enough to do due diligence on him. I also reckon they would do more than the David Murray "show us yer bank statement" model. They do say in that statement that they are comfortable in all scenarios.... presumably including the one where they have to chase CW.

I am wondering if the stockbroker firm (Pritchards?) was complicit in establishing his "credit-worthiness".

Loving the mystery...:cb

[green glory]

Looks like Whyte not Rangers will have to cover it, leaving the club with an owner unable to invest . No money coming in from season ticket sales. Dwindling attendances due to poor performances , with reduction in the amount of ST's sold affecting the club's ability to buy decent players AND pay off the current debts. (puff pant). That's the optimistic scenario anyway. I haven't even covered the big tax bill. Ouch!

[CropleyWasGod]

Looks like Whyte not Rangers will have to cover it, leaving the club with an owner unable to invest . No money coming in from season ticket sales. Dwindling attendances due to poor performances , with reduction in the amount of ST's sold affecting the club's ability to buy decent players AND pay off the current debts. (puff pant). That's the optimistic scenario anyway. I haven't even covered the big tax bill. Ouch!

You're a gloomy *******.


:greengrin

[Saorsa]

Are the fans really that thick that they will chant banned and offensive songs at a game? Morons.Even thicker than that, some of them :agree:

[Seveno]

LOL...

That said, Ticketus are smart enough to do due diligence on him. I also reckon they would do more than the David Murray "show us yer bank statement" model. They do say in that statement that they are comfortable in all scenarios.... presumably including the one where they have to chase CW.

I am wondering if the stockbroker firm (Pritchards?) was complicit in establishing his "credit-worthiness".

Loving the mystery...:cb

They must know CW well and are comfortable that he'll be able to 'borrow' sufficient funds from someone else to cover any potential debt on this deal. We need a copy of his birth certificate to see if his middle name is Ponzi.

[CropleyWasGod]

They must know CW well and are comfortable that he'll be able to 'borrow' sufficient funds from someone else to cover any potential debt on this deal. We need a copy of his birth certificate to see if his middle name is Ponzi.

:greengrin

Given that Pritchards isny worth a "Whyte pound" any more, the boy may struggle.

Shame

[green glory]

It just gets worse.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/

Even their future pies belong to someone else.

[CropleyWasGod]

It just gets worse.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/

Even their future pies belong to someone else.

STV are clearly getting their stories from Hibs.net. I posted that days ago :greengrin

[StevieC]

That said, Ticketus are smart enough to do due diligence on him.

Wasn't there something in the papers about one of Whyte's appointed board members was chairman of Octopus "something-or-other", a company that was in the same group as Ticketus?

To me it is sounding more and more like this whole scheme was organised and put into plan by a bunch of business "shysters" before the take-over was even close to being confirmed, and I'm not convinced that "due dilligence" would have been carried out. It's clear that the Ticketus money has been used to purchase the club and to get his Octopus mate a nice bonus/wage on the board at Rangers. On this basis strings may well have been pulled to get the deal done.

It all sounds like a fool proof plan to get full control of Rangers and your fingers into some lucrative money earning opportunities, with the back up of ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park should things really go wrong.

To be honest, I think it would have all been going according to plan if there hadn't been the monumental European failure.

[CropleyWasGod]

Wasn't there something in the papers about one of Whyte's appointed board members was chairman of Octopus "something-or-other", a company that was in the same group as Ticketus?

To me it is sounding more and more like this whole scheme was organised and put into plan by a bunch of business "shysters" before the take-over was even close to being confirmed, and I'm not convinced that "due dilligence" would have been carried out. It's clear that the Ticketus money has been used to purchase the club and to get his Octopus mate a nice bonus/wage on the board at Rangers. On this basis strings may well have been pulled to get the deal done.

It all sounds like a fool proof plan to get full control of Rangers and your fingers into some lucrative money earning opportunities, with the back up of ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park should things really go wrong.

To be honest, I think it would have all been going according to plan if there hadn't been the monumental European failure.

Octopus Investments own Ticketus.

On the Board of Ticketus is the owner of Close Finance, who have the now-infamous "pie mortgage".

And, I absolutely agree with the last line.....it all hinged on CL money. (see my earlier post about Rule Number 1 in football budgeting).

[Spike Mandela]

Certainly looks like it but I wonder where he would get money from? Does he have 24million mates who would give him a loan of a pound?

What is Alistair Johnstone's agenda in all this. I reckon he is hoping criminal charges can be laid at Whytes door saddling Whyte with the £18m debt and hey presto Rangers FC is £18m cheaper for any prospective buyer.

[CropleyWasGod]

What is Alistair Johnstone's agenda in all this. I reckon he is hoping criminal charges can be laid at Whytes door saddling Whyte with the £18m debt and hey presto Rangers FC is £18m cheaper for any prospective buyer.

I was thinking about this earlier, Spike.

For the last few weeks, he has been the apparent "man in white", asking all the so-called important questions, with threats of police action and the like.

I am now starting to think that it might all be a vanity project for him. Either that, or he is angling to be back at RFC under a new regime, or he is deflecting any criticism of the Murray regime. SDM knows where the bodies are buried here, I am sure of that, and they will be scrabbling to escape the smell.

[jgl07]

Looks like Whyte not Rangers will have to cover it, leaving the club with an owner unable to invest . No money coming in from season ticket sales. Dwindling attendances due to poor performances , with reduction in the amount of ST's sold affecting the club's ability to buy decent players AND pay off the current debts. (puff pant). That's the optimistic scenario anyway. I haven't even covered the big tax bill. Ouch!

Due diligence obviously did come into the Ticketus calculations.

Rangers were £18 million in debt to Lloyds Bank Group and had a potential tax bill of £53.3 million (£49 million for the big one and £4.3 million for the little one) hanging over it. They were, according to Craig Whyte burning £9 to £10 million a year. How the hell were they going to survive with much of the season ticket cash pre-empted by Ticketus.

Craig Whyte argued that 'one of his companies' had indemnified Ticketus for the deal. He could presumably liquidate this particular company and Ticketus would get nothing as most of Craig Whyte's assets look illusory.

This could still leave Whyte as the secured creditor for Rangers in the event of liquidation and given the ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park for an outlay of diddely squat!

[CropleyWasGod]

Due diligence obviously did come into the Ticketus calculations.

Rangers were £18 million in debt to Lloyds Bank Group and had a potential tax bill of £53.3 million (£49 million for the big one and £4.3 million for the little one) hanging over it. They were, according to Craig Whyte burning £9 to £10 million a year. How the hell were they going to survive with much of the season ticket cash pre-empted by Ticketus.

Craig Whyte argued that 'one of his companies' had indemnified Ticketus for the deal. He could presumably liquidate this particular company and Ticketus would get nothing as most of Craig Whyte's assets look illusory.

This could still leave Whyte as the secured creditor for Rangers in the event of liquidation and given the ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park for an outlay of diddely squat!

Don't agree :greengrin

RFC Group owe RFC £24m... the Ticketus money that wasn't passed on. RFC owe RFCG £18m...... what they paid Lloyds. Net effect is that RFC are owed £6m.

There is no creditor IMO.

[green glory]

Octopus Investments own Ticketus.

On the Board of Ticketus is the owner of Close Finance, who have the now-infamous "pie mortgage".

And, I absolutely agree with the last line.....it all hinged on CL money. (see my earlier post about Rule Number 1 in football budgeting).

:top marks

They're so *****in screwed man.

[ancienthibby]

Don't agree :greengrin

RFC Group owe RFC £24m... the Ticketus money that wasn't passed on. RFC owe RFCG £18m...... what they paid Lloyds. Net effect is that RFC are owed £6m.

There is no creditor IMO.

But is the Ticketus deal still not 'legal'?

So far as we know it was concluded before CW was a director or majority shareholder in RFC?

I have known of any number of deals in the past requiring, as the legals like to say, to be ''cured'' but this is so fundamental - who, in RFC authorised CW to do the deal with Ticketus??

[CropleyWasGod]

But is the Ticketus deal still not 'legal'?

So far as we know it was concluded before CW was a director or majority shareholder in RFC?

I have known of any number of deals in the past requiring, as the legals like to say, to be ''cured'' but this is so fundamental - who, in RFC authorised CW to do the deal with Ticketus??

Whether or not it was legal is irrelevant, IMO. The fact is that the Group took cash that should have gone to the Club.

As for your last question....:greengrin... one would hope that the admins, Lord Nimmo Smith, the polis, the FSA are asking the same question.

If I were a suspicious man, I might think that you should look first at the people who wanted the deal to happen. But would they admit to it? :rolleyes:

Besides, we can't say that, lest Hibs.net gets sued :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Whether or not it was legal is irrelevant, IMO. The fact is that the Group took cash that should have gone to the Club.

As for your last question....:greengrin... one would hope that the admins, Lord Nimmo Smith, the polis, the FSA are asking the same question.

If I were a suspicious man, I might think that you should look first at the people who wanted the deal to happen. But would they admit to it? :rolleyes:

Besides, we can't say that, lest Hibs.net gets sued :greengrin

Pardon me if I'm wrong Mr Croppers, but 'the Group' is a CW company whereas the club is not??

Legal dodgy, dodgy illegal - whit's the difference??:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Pardon me if I'm wrong Mr Croppers, but 'the Group' is a CW company whereas the club is not??

Legal dodgy, dodgy illegal - whit's the difference??:greengrin

I am not sure who the shareholders in RFCG are, but lets assume it's CW for the moment. It's easily checked, if you've got a couple of quid (as Cav said earlier, that's more than the club is worth:greengrin)

The club is 83.3%(?) owned by RFCG.

RFCG paid off Lloyds, and RFCG took the Ticketus cash.

So RFCG owe RFC £6m.

Or have I missed your point? :0)

[jgl07]

Don't agree :greengrin

RFC Group owe RFC £24m... the Ticketus money that wasn't passed on. RFC owe RFCG £18m...... what they paid Lloyds. Net effect is that RFC are owed £6m.

There is no creditor IMO.

I hope that you are right on this one.

[CropleyWasGod]

I hope that you are right on this one.

So do I :greengrin

If I'm not, I shall slink away to the land of the Yamanomists.

Seriously, though, I can't see any other explanation. The diversion of the Ticketus money has been established by the admins, and admitted by CW. The paying-off of Lloyds was claimed by CW (not that I would believe him on anything, of course.).

The best scams are often the simplest.... and this one would have worked, had it not been for those pesky kids that stopped RFC from getting into the Champions League.

[ancienthibby]

So do I :greengrin

If I'm not, I shall slink away to the land of the Yamanomists.

Seriously, though, I can't see any other explanation. The best scams are often the simplest.... and this one would have worked, had it not been for those pesky kids that stopped RFC from getting into the Champions League.

On the wee Jobbie, it's now 50% larger!:faf:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298826-crisis-hit-rangers-tax-bill-is-6m-higher-than-previously-thought/

[Saorsa]

On the wee Jobbie, it's now 50% larger!:faf:http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298826-crisis-hit-rangers-tax-bill-is-6m-higher-than-previously-thought/:hilarious

[CropleyWasGod]

On the wee Jobbie, it's now 50% larger!:faf:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298826-crisis-hit-rangers-tax-bill-is-6m-higher-than-previously-thought/

FFS. :rolleyes:

Actually, £4m of the extra must relate to the VAT on the Ticketus deal.

So, £11m for VAT on walk-ups, plus PAYE etc, for the period from May to January. £1.2m per month.

I'll get my head around that soon :cb

[CropleyWasGod]

Hang on.... what's this?

"unpaid PAYE and VAT worth around £9m had been deducted from employees’ wages, "

That's a good one... deduct VAT from your employees' wages???

And then keep it???

He's a beezer, eh no?

[ancienthibby]

Hang on.... what's this?

"unpaid PAYE and VAT worth around £9m had been deducted from employees’ wages, "

That's a good one... deduct VAT from your employees' wages???

And then keep it???

He's a beezer, eh no?


It's called managing your cash flow:faf::faf::faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

Okay, back of a fag packet calculations here:-

£15m for the period since CW took over.

According to the BBC, £4m for the Ticketus VAT has been paid.

£4m for the wee tax case

I have roughtly estimated £2.5m for the VAT on walk-ups and away supporters. (calculations available on request :greengrin)

Which leaves £8.5m for PAYE & NI.

Approx £1m per month!!

[Golden Bear]

Gordon Smith to leave Rangers according to Radio Scotland. No other details at this stage.

[GordonR]

Sacked by the administrators, says my source at BBC Scotland. Him and Director of Operations Ali Russell.

[ancienthibby]

Gordon Smith to leave Rangers according to Radio Scotland. No other details at this stage.

Someone else called Ali Russell also leaving!

The axe is swinging:greengrin

[Andy74]

Smith's statement is great. Was never allowed to do any of the things in his remit.

I reckon this Whyte thing might just save Rangers actually. It's going to be presented that they've been the victim of a scammer.

[Spike Mandela]

Smith's statement is great. Was never allowed to do any of the things in his remit.

I reckon this Whyte thing might just save Rangers actually. It's going to be presented that they've been the victim of a scammer.

Certainly the angle I believe Alistair Johnstone is trying to push.

[Spike Mandela]

Gordon Smith to leave Rangers according to Radio Scotland. No other details at this stage.

How long before he turns up as a bbc pundit. Default job of those on the merry go round.:rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

Smith's statement is great. Was never allowed to do any of the things in his remit.

I reckon this Whyte thing might just save Rangers actually. It's going to be presented that they've been the victim of a scammer.

Even so, Andy, with £15m of current tax debt, and £49m potential.... not to mention £24m down on income.... sentiment isn't going to help them trade out of it.

[Andy74]

Even so, Andy, with £15m of current tax debt, and £49m potential.... not to mention £24m down on income.... sentiment isn't going to help them trade out of it.

Good. :greengrin

[steakbake]

How long before he turns up as a bbc pundit. Default job of those on the merry go round.:rolleyes:

I usually go through life with a bit of grudging tolerance of my fellow man.

Not him though. He's a welt. He's like a jobbie that won't flush.

[TornadoHibby]

Don't agree :greengrin

RFC Group owe RFC £24m... the Ticketus money that wasn't passed on. RFC owe RFCG £18m...... what they paid Lloyds. Net effect is that RFC are owed £6m.

There is no creditor IMO.

That will depend upon the terms of the documentation for each advance and it is perfectly possible that "set off" may not be permissable as a result! :wink:

If he was following and implementing advice from the army of corporate finance and legal advisors he had appointed pre acquisition of RFC from Murray then you would imagine that this would have been done to protect their client, CW? :confused:

That may well be why there is a feeling that CW is the largest creditor! :dunno:

[Seveno]

That will depend upon the terms of the documentation for each advance and it is perfectly possible that "set off" may not be permissable as a result! :wink:

If he was following and implementing advice from the army of corporate finance and legal advisors he had appointed pre acquisition of RFC from Murray then you would imagine that this would have been done to protect their client, CW? :confused:

That may well be why there is a feeling that CW is the largest creditor! :dunno:

Do we have any evidence host he had all these experts behind him though ? All Delboy had was Rodney.

[stokesmessiah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17146506

[CropleyWasGod]

That will depend upon the terms of the documentation for each advance and it is perfectly possible that "set off" may not be permissable as a result! :wink:

If he was following and implementing advice from the army of corporate finance and legal advisors he had appointed pre acquisition of RFC from Murray then you would imagine that this would have been done to protect their client, CW? :confused:

That may well be why there is a feeling that CW is the largest creditor! Which :dunno:

What advances are these ?

RFCG paid off LBG

Ticketus bought season tickets

[stokesmessiah]

And the plot thickens even further (is that even possible now).

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298830-police-passed-dossier-on-rangers-finances-by-administrators/

[TornadoHibby]

What advances are these ?

RFCG paid off LBG

Ticketus bought season tickets

The two between RFC and RFCG that you noted in the post to which I commented?! :dunno::dunno::dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

The two between RFC and RFCG that you noted in the post to which I commented?! :dunno::dunno::dunno:

Neither of these are advances though. One wad paying off borrowings. The other was the sale of season tickets.

Whilst I accept that one might call the former an advance ....the second is definitely not.

[Brando7]

And the plot thickens even further (is that even possible now).

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298830-police-passed-dossier-on-rangers-finances-by-administrators/

They have obviously found something that they feel is illegal :devil:

Lovin every minute of this

[Seveno]

Not even Vlad has ever given us this day by day, almost hour by hour, amusement. David Murray should hand his knighthood over to CW - for services to comedy.

[TornadoHibby]

Neither of these are advances though. One wad paying off borrowings. The other was the sale of season tickets.

Whilst I accept that one might call the former an advance ....the second is definitely not.

Looks like we're back to double entry accounting then?! :confused:

The receipt of the Ticketus cash into the holding company creates a loan from RFC to the holding company!

The repayment of the LBG loan of £18million creates a loan to RFC from the holding company!

Now for CW (through the holding company) to be the largest creditor of RFC, the two loans would need to be specifically separated by appropriate documentation so that 'set off' of the creditor in RFC (the £18m) cannot be reduced to £nil by offsetting against the RFC debtor (amount due by the holding company - the Ticketus cash) I think!

Does that help to make my 'point' clearer? :dunno:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

How long before he turns up as a bbc pundit. Default job of those on the merry go round.:rolleyes:

Total conflict of interest is he still not agent as is/was our fave "biscuits"

[IWasThere2016]

Having met Gordon Smith recently, I have to say he was a really nice guy.

[CropleyWasGod]

Looks like we're back to double entry accounting then?! :confused:

The receipt of the Ticketus cash into the holding company creates a loan from RFC to the holding company!

The repayment of the LBG loan of £18million creates a loan to RFC from the holding company!

Now for CW (through the holding company) to be the largest creditor of RFC, the two loans would need to be specifically separated by appropriate documentation so that 'set off' of the creditor in RFC (the £18m) cannot be reduced to £nil by offsetting against the RFC debtor (amount due by the holding company - the Ticketus cash) I think!

Does that help to make my 'point' clearer? :dunno:

The floating charge that RFCG have over the assets of RFC.... which is of course the important point in all of this.... is over all sums due by RFC to RFCG.

Even the most rudimentary of financial management would conclude that RFCG owe RFC £6m. Any attempt by the administrators or RFCG to enforce the charge (in favour of the £18m) would be resisted by HMRC and the other creditors, and rightly so IMO.

[TornadoHibby]

The floating charge that RFCG have over the assets of RFC.... which is of course the important point in all of this.... is over all sums due by RFC to RFCG.

Even the most rudimentary of financial management would conclude that RFCG owe RFC £6m. Any attempt by the administrators or RFCG to enforce the charge (in favour of the £18m) would be resisted by HMRC and the other creditors, and rightly so IMO.

Not sure if you are correct in your assertion that 'any idiot would know ....' without knowing the precise terms under which these transactions took place! :confused:

The net effect on paper might be £6m but in legal terms in an insolvency situation it might not just be as straightforward! :dunno:

Lawyers for and against might just have a field day over something like this! :wink:

[SteveHFC]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/304060/Fans-pledge-cash-to-save-Rangers:faf:

[blindsummit]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/304060/Fans-pledge-cash-to-save-Rangers:faf:

That's a lot of benefit cheques.

[wazoo1875]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/304060/Fans-pledge-cash-to-save-Rangers:faf:

“There is a clear view that anyone who comes into Rangers now must leave their giro at the door."

;-)

[CropleyWasGod]

That's a lot of benefit cheques.

The phrase "throwing a sausage into the Clyde Tunnel" springs to mind. :greengrin

[Spike Mandela]

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/

These are not my comments but from the blogger above discussing Duff and Phelps statement...............


The D&P statement is in bold with my comments beneath in plain text.

DUFF*and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, today (Wednesday 22nd February) issued the following statement.

David Whitehouse, joint administrator said, “The Rangers fans have been absolutely tremendous over the last 10 days and it’s vital to the administration process that we continue to receive the support we have had thus far.

“Ibrox was sold out last Saturday and hopefully that can be the case for the rest of the season. The fans are clearly extremely loyal to Rangers and by coming to matches at Ibrox they are directly contributing to the Club’s future.

As I have pointed out before, in almost every administration of a football club I can recall, the administrators have not honoured the season tickets. Season ticket holders have paid for their seats “up front”. Legally therefore they are creditors of the insolvent company. The value of their remaining part of the season ticket falls to be a claim in the insolvency, should they choose to make it of course. It could be argued that an unfair preference is being given to the season ticket holders by the administrators. How many other suppliers are being paid for pre-administration debts?

If the interest is to have the fans “directly contributing” to the Club’s future, then surely the fans would understand why their season tickets were now void, and would not begrudge paying again at the door for tickets? Whilst the extra costs would undoubtedly be difficult for some fans to meet, it would be a test of loyalty to the team.

At Motherwell, Dundee and Livingston, for example, the buckets and collection tins were out, and the season ticket holders paid on the gate for entrance.

Rangers’ administrators therefore appear to have missed out on a great deal of money by (a) letting season ticket holders in “free” and (b) by promising the same rights to the end of the season.

It might be that the administrators want to keep the fans on-side so that next year’s season tickets will sell well, but I think there are many more matters at play than simply whether these tickets are honoured.

“We are hopeful that we can enhance revenue streams in the coming months through a variety of means and we have been very encouraged by the support of the business partners who have helped in that regard already.

“Enhance revenue streams in the coming months”? The job of an administrator is, as I have written before, (a) to rescue the business as a going concern; (b) failing which to secure as good a deal for all creditors as possible and (c) if neither a nor b can be done, to secure payment for any secured creditor.

In any distressed business it can (a) increase income and (b) reduce outgoings. The approach of D&P so far seems to have been, until the departure last night of Messrs Russell and Smith, to focus entirely on (a).

I should say though that the story broken by Gerry Braiden of the Herald last night – that despite D&P’s promises, Rangers have not paid for the policing of Saturday’s game, suggests that the cost reductions have started – but reneging, allegedly, on a deal with Strathclyde Police might have consequences for D&P, as they agreed to pay for it, and could, if not resolved, lead to Rangers closing the doors at Ibrox very soon indeed.

I’ll come back to that later.

In addition, what is this about “the coming months”? I had thought D&P were confident about a quick departure from administration. Could it be that their rosy view of the world has darkened the more they have looked into things?

How have “business partners” helped with the “income streams”? Who has given the administrators money to continue to run the club?

“The Club’s suppliers are also working with us to improve income flows where possible and the sponsors have also been tremendously supportive. We are in discussion with them to see if we can enhance the packages that we currently have in place.

Sponsors do not have a choice but to help, unless the contract specifically allows them to terminate on an Insolvency Event. Therefore, even though association with Rangers is just now less prestigious than at other times, the sponsors have to smile and go along with the ride.

However, if I was a sponsor of Rangers, indeed of any team in this situation, whilst D&P might ask me to “enhance” my package – ie pay more money – I would take a huge amount of convincing.

How can suppliers “help” with cash flow? Only by agreeing to supply Rangers (in administration) whilst waiting even longer for payment. In light of the alleged treatment of Strathclyde Police, would any supplier go along with that?

“This is obviously a very difficult period for the Club but those who come to the fore and support the Club will obtain tremendous publicity which is what sponsorship is all about.

So a sponsor who steps us to the plate will be doing it for the publicity – Rangers are at probably the lowest point in its long and illustrious history now. Whilst the followers of the Ibrox team would appreciate any efforts to keep it alive, the opinion outside the loyal fan base, and not just among fans of other teams, is that we have an organisation which has grossly mismanaged itself, and owes huge sums by way of tax. As Mr Salmond saw from the reaction to his ill-advised comments, the tide of public opinion is not in Rangers’ favour just now.

If I ran a big commercial organisation, would I want to be perceived as helping a “tax dodging” company? How does that benefit my brand?

“Right now, it is quite simple – income now will help secure the future of Rangers.

How much income? Taking account of tax and other liabilities, Rangers debt is enormous. The owner has stated that they have a £10 million per year income shortfall. An extra £10 million income does not remove a penny of debt.

A cynic would say, wrongly of course, that D&P fears that there is not enough in the pot to pay its fees!

“Our focus is on generating income for the Club but there is also a focus on costs and the steps we are taking in terms of the cost base of the Club will evolve during the next week.

Good to see that the cost reductions are coming – but why has it taken so long? Portsmouth made over 30 people redundant in a couple of days. All other Scottish football teams who have entered administration have made job cuts (regrettably) immediately. But talking about these savings “evolving”?

“On a daily basis we are talking to department heads and seeing where there is capacity for cost savings but being very mindful of the need to both to preserve the performance on the pitch and retain the efficiency of the club off the pitch as well.

The need to preserve performance on the field is not an administrator’s responsibility.

The only justification for this would be that doing so would make the club more money. But Rangers is not going to win anything this season and will not be eligible for European football next, if it even exists.

Would Rangers fans refuse to turn out to see a team mainly of youth players, if paying at the gate could still save the club? Of course they would.

Therefore the only reason for “preserving the performance” on the field is for the increased prize money for finishing second, rather than lower down. Does that justify the huge salary bill that D&P would need to meet?

No, it does not.

“Overall, I would describe the situation as positive. Everybody recognises the plight that the club is in and have come to the table to help and assist where possible.

The situation is “positive”!!??

Remarkable.

I can only equate this to the captain of the Titanic saying that the news was good as the ship would not run out of ice cubes for drinks n the bar!

“We have also had very good support from the football authorities and have met with both the SFA and the SPL.

What support? Financial? Have the SPL and SFA discussed with their members, some of whom are owed money by Rangers, if they are happy for “support” to be provided?

Remember the SPL “prosecuted” Hearts for failure to act with the utmost good faith for paying its players what the League saw as one day late!

If I ran any of the teams owed money by Rangers, I would be demanding answers from Messrs Regan and Doncaster before a penny of “assistance” went to Rangers.

“For 140 years Rangers has been a key part of Scottish football. We hope that the influence and the support which the Club has given to the game over the years will carry some weight at these difficult times.

Well it’s worth hoping!

“Generally other clubs are sympathetic. I think clubs realise this is a difficult time for the football industry in general and Rangers isn’t unique in its financial position. They are very supportive of the survival of the Club which is critical to Scottish football.”

Rangers is unique in its financial position. No one else owes such huge sums to HMRC due to a failed tax reduction scheme. No one else boasted about spending twice what its nearest competitor did. No one else has been running up new tax debt at in excess of £1 million per month.

Can D&P show how Rangers survival is critical to Scottish football – no – because it is not.

*

Conclusion

I will come back to Rangers latest comments and developments tonight. As a story it continually develops faster than it can be written about. I hope to keep up with it for the sake of my reader – maybe I should suggest that D&P keep quiet for a day or two.

[ano hibby]

Very interesting post/blog.
In all the info flying around i hadnt picked up the point noted above that (presumably) if Rangers still in administartion they can't play in Europe..is this right or have i misinterpreted?

[grunt]

Interesting points - specially the one about season ticket holders potentially getting preferential treatment.

[KeithTheHibby]

Not even Vlad has ever given us this day by day, almost hour by hour, amusement. David Murray should hand his knighthood over to CW - for services to comedy.


I reckon if the grunts ever went into administration you would uncover a lot more that what we are seeing at Ibrox.

[JimBHibees]

Very interesting post/blog.
In all the info flying around i hadnt picked up the point noted above that (presumably) if Rangers still in administartion they can't play in Europe..is this right or have i misinterpreted?

That is right they need to have had audited accounts signed off by March 31st otherwise they wont be able to play in Europe next season.

[CropleyWasGod]

That is right they need to have had audited accounts signed off by March 31st otherwise they wont be able to play in Europe next season.

I suspect that the accounts will be seen as a priority.... with the potential for extra income that their lodging has..

I can only guess at what the auditors were hesitating over, but much of the material that has been uncovered over the past week must be helpful to them.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting point here.....

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/84e33ad69dd07375d3f67898287474a4/compdetails

The Rangers Football Club of Glasgow Limited was formed on 20 February 2012.

[JimBHibees]

Interesting point here.....

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/84e33ad69dd07375d3f67898287474a4/compdetails

The Rangers Football Club of Glasgow Limited was formed on 20 February 2012.

Wonder who stays at that address in Kirkcaldy.

Looks a complete wind up IMO.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is the correct link. Wonder who stays at that ddress in Kirkcaldy.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/84e33ad69dd07375d3f67898287474a4/compdetails

My first thought was that it would be a solicitors' office, but it looks as if it's residential.

Some enterprising young buck trying to make a buck by selling the name?

[Part/Time Supporter]

Interesting point here.....

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/84e33ad69dd07375d3f67898287474a4/compdetails

The Rangers Football Club of Glasgow Limited was formed on 20 February 2012.

registered office is what looks awfy like a council house in the middle of Kirkcaldy

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=157l157l0l563l1l1l0l0l0l0l109l109l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=601&wrapid=tlif133009407130310&q=KY2+6EN&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4887b57b3f5001a3:0xc76e30796484ed7a,Kirkca ldy+KY2+6EN&gl=uk&ei=4J9HT7W5Muec0AXau5CzDg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA

probably some laugh-a-minute Celtc fan.

[JimBHibees]

registered office is what looks awfy like a council house in the middle of Kirkcaldy

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=157l157l0l563l1l1l0l0l0l0l109l109l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=601&wrapid=tlif133009407130310&q=KY2+6EN&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4887b57b3f5001a3:0xc76e30796484ed7a,Kirkca ldy+KY2+6EN&gl=uk&ei=4J9HT7W5Muec0AXau5CzDg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA

probably some laugh-a-minute Celtc fan.

No doubt, hope he hasnt put his own address as he could be getting some interesting visitors I would have thought. If he has put someone else's then you have got to feel sorry for them.

[JimBHibees]

My first thought was that it would be a solicitors' office, but it looks as if it's residential.

Some enterprising young buck trying to make a buck by selling the name?

:agree: That or a wind up.

[Caversham Green]

I suspect that the accounts will be seen as a priority.... with the potential for extra income that their lodging has..

I can only guess at what the auditors were hesitating over, but much of the material that has been uncovered over the past week must be helpful to them.

I don't know if it was the only reason, but Whyte's argument that they couldn't sign off while the big tax case was pending was entirely justified. The audit opinion would have had to be so heavily qualified it was better to wait until things were clearer.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know if it was the only reason, but Whyte's argument that they couldn't sign off while the big tax case was pending was entirely justified. The audit opinion would have had to be so heavily qualified it was better to wait until things were clearer.

You're being an auditor again, Cav:wink:

I can see that, and it would make sense. But I wonder now whether any of the information that has come out in the past week (eg the Ticketus stuff) was available to the auditors.

[EuanH78]

Wonder who stays at that address in Kirkcaldy.

Looks a complete wind up IMO.

That's in T-Hall (Templehall) Kirkcaldy, not know for high flying solicitor types. Council scheme mostly.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's in T-Hall (Templehall) Kirkcaldy, not know for high flying solicitor types. Council scheme mostly.

Craig's coke dealer? :confused:

[Caversham Green]

You're being an auditor again, Cav:wink:

I can see that, and it would make sense. But I wonder now whether any of the information that has come out in the past week (eg the Ticketus stuff) was available to the auditors.

I know - I just can't let go.

Given what we were discussing on the PM board I do wonder how the auditors would have dealt with it. I suspect that they were not unhappy that it was all delayed because of the BTC. Still looking forward to the Yams' audit report as well - it's like a drug.

[CropleyWasGod]

I know - I just can't let go.

Given what we were discussing on the PM board I do wonder how the auditors would have dealt with it. I suspect that they were not unhappy that it was all delayed because of the BTC. Still looking forward to the Yams' audit report as well - it's like a drug.

Maybe they just didn't know?

At that point.... year end, June... audit late summer... they would have known about the borrowing being paid off.

Would they have known about the Ticketus money being due in? If they did know, maybe they were looking for the debit :greengrin.... or maybe Craigy boy just wouldn't tell them where the money had gone.

I agree that it was easier for them to delay as long as possible.... as long as they stuck in an interim bill. :wink:

[Spike Mandela]

Nearly 2 weeks into administration and everything just seems to be ticking along as normal at Ibrox. Does that not strike everyone as rather unusual?:confused:

[Caversham Green]

Maybe they just didn't know?

At that point.... year end, June... audit late summer... they would have known about the borrowing being paid off.

Would they have known about the Ticketus money being due in? If they did know, maybe they were looking for the debit :greengrin.... or maybe Craigy boy just wouldn't tell them where the money had gone.

I agree that it was easier for them to delay as long as possible.... as long as they stuck in an interim bill. :wink:

The deal was done in May was it not? If so the auditors would certainly have known about it unless Mr W deliberately concealed it. And yes, they would have had problems with the debit, not least because a holding company debtor would have represented the company lending money to buy its own shares which I reckon is illegal.

Interim bill? goes without saying.

[CropleyWasGod]

Nearly 2 weeks into administration and everything just seems to be ticking along as normal at Ibrox. Does that not strike everyone as rather unusual?:confused:

Hmm, don't know I agree that it's "as normal".

From that blog you quoted, the guy seems to suggest things aren't going as quickly as, for example, Portsmouth. The two situations are probably (and I use that word because I am not that clued-up about Portsmouth, and of course we only have some of the RFC story) very different.

I think things have moved quite quickly. They got a big pay day last week (albeit it seems the polis haven't been paid:greengrin), have found £24m, established the true extent of the HMRC debt, and have passed details along to the police.

I can understand the admins getting those things sorted first, before setting about the redundancies. Only by getting the proper financial picture can they make the appropriate cuts.

You wanting the players sacked, Spike?? You and everybody else :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

The deal was done in May was it not? If so the auditors would certainly have known about it unless Mr W deliberately concealed it. And yes, they would have had problems with the debit, not least because a holding company debtor would have represented the company lending money to buy its own shares which I reckon is illegal.

Interim bill? goes without saying.

Oh, you're so cynical.....:rolleyes:

[TornadoHibby]

You're being an auditor again, Cav:wink:

I can see that, and it would make sense. But I wonder now whether any of the information that has come out in the past week (eg the Ticketus stuff) was available to the auditors.


In terms of current Accounting Standards (known as FRS's) and, particularly, RRS21"Events After the Balance Sheet Date", auditors have a responsibility to look at relevant information about:

1. Material matters that either affect the conditions prevailing at the balance sheet date regarding the company ("adjusting events" as the balance sheet amounts should, where applicable, be adjusted to reflect the effect of those conditions); and

2. Material matters that are indicative of conditions that arose after the balance sheet date for which the entity does not adjust the amounts recognised in its financial statements ("non adjusting events" in so far as the relevant balance sheet amounts are concerned.

If non-adjusting events after the balance sheet date are material and non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions of users the entity should disclose the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.

I imagine that the sale of the RFC plc to RFC Group, the repayment of the LBG Loan by RFCG, the retention of the Ticketus cash from the sale of future ST's of RFC in the aggregate and each on its own may have been a "material matter" that was caught by the previous paragraph (in bold) and required at least disclosure! This could have been an area of "disagreement" between CW and the auditors resulting in the accounts being delayed. :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

In terms of current Accounting Standards (known as FRS's) and, particularly, RRS21"Events After the Balance Sheet Date", auditors have a responsibility to look at relevant information about:

1. Material matters that either affect the conditions prevailing at the balance sheet date regarding the company ("adjusting events" as the balance sheet amounts should, where applicable, be adjusted to reflect the effect of those conditions); and

2. Material matters that are indicative of conditions that arose after the balance sheet date for which the entity does not adjust the amounts recognised in its financial statements ("non adjusting events" in so far as the relevant balance sheet amounts are concerned.

]If non-adjusting events after the balance sheet date are material and non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions of users the entity should disclose the nature of the event and an estimate of its financial effect, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made.

I imagine that the sale of the RFC plc to RFC Group, the repayment of the LBG Loan by RFCG, the retention of the Ticketus cash from the sale of future ST's of RFC in the aggregate and each on its own may have been a "material matter" that was caught by the previous paragraph (in bold) and required at least disclosure! This could have been an area of "disagreement" between CW and the auditors resulting in the accounts being delayed. :agree:

The events in bold happened within the accounting year.

[TornadoHibby]

Maybe they just didn't know?

At that point.... year end, June... audit late summer... they would have known about the borrowing being paid off.

Would they have known about the Ticketus money being due in? If they did know, maybe they were looking for the debit :greengrin.... or maybe Craigy boy just wouldn't tell them where the money had gone.

I agree that it was easier for them to delay as long as possible.... as long as they stuck in an interim bill. :wink:

:tee hee: :tee hee: :tee hee:

Excellent! :greengrin :wink:

[hibs0666]

Nearly 2 weeks into administration and everything just seems to be ticking along as normal at Ibrox. Does that not strike everyone as rather unusual?:confused:

I'm amazed that you think the last two weeks at Ibrox is normal. :wink:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Nearly 2 weeks into administration and everything just seems to be ticking along as normal at Ibrox. Does that not strike everyone as rather unusual?:confused:

If by unusual, you mean that the administrator has made minimal effort to cut costs (ie sacking players) in a loss-making business, then yes, it is unusual.

[Sergio sledge]

registered office is what looks awfy like a council house in the middle of Kirkcaldy

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=157l157l0l563l1l1l0l0l0l0l109l109l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=601&wrapid=tlif133009407130310&q=KY2+6EN&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4887b57b3f5001a3:0xc76e30796484ed7a,Kirkca ldy+KY2+6EN&gl=uk&ei=4J9HT7W5Muec0AXau5CzDg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA

probably some laugh-a-minute Celtc fan.

I don't think a Celtc fan would have gates like these:

7943 :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think a Celtc fan would have gates like these:

7943 :greengrin

Brilliant!

Well, we know where his benefit money went this week. :cb

[TornadoHibby]

The events in bold happened within the accounting year.

Well in that case the auditors should have been fully aware (i.e. asked for and received full details) of all of the details of the various transactions and that would probably be the reason why the accounts are delayed as there are possible audit concerns regarding these transactions, depending upon the actual circumstances and facts, which should be properly explained to the auditors satisfaction by the directors and be compliant with Company Law and GAAP. Otherwise the auditors would "qualify" the audit report which is something to be avoided by any company wherever possible.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well in that case the auditors should have been fully aware (i.e. asked for and received full details) of all of the details of the various transactions and that would probably be the reason why the accounts are delayed as there are possible audit concerns regarding these transactions, depending upon the actual circumstances and facts, which should be properly explained to the auditors satisfaction by the directors and be compliant with Company Law and GAAP. Otherwise the auditors would "qualify" the audit report which is something to be avoided by any company wherever possible.

It wasn't those (in-year) transactions that I was talking about earlier. It was the Ticketus one... whether they were aware of it and, if so, what their view on it was.

[TornadoHibby]

It wasn't those (in-year) transactions that I was talking about earlier. It was the Ticketus one... whether they were aware of it and, if so, what their view on it was.

Whether it was within the financial year or not, UK financial reporting and auditing standards and Company Law requires that material matters such as these are properly recorded and disclosed to all users of financial statements. Although on the face of it the Ticketus might be considered to be a normal trading transaction in that it deals with the sale of (future periods) ST sales, the "inter-company" "loans" aspect for want of a better description make it something that should be highlighted in the accounts if failure to do so might prejudice a proper understanding of the Company's financial position as a result!

[CropleyWasGod]

Whether it was within the financial year or not, UK financial reporting and auditing standards and Company Law requires that material matters such as these are properly recorded and disclosed to all users of financial statements. Although on the face of it the Ticketus might be considered to be a normal trading transaction in that it deals with the sale of (future periods) ST sales, the "inter-company" "loans" aspect for want of a better description make it something that should be highlighted in the accounts if failure to do so might prejudice a proper understanding of the Company's financial position as a result!

Yes, I know all this. Which is why I raised the issue in the first place.

My point was.... did the auditors know about it at the time? If they did, what was their view on it? And is their view on it changed by the information that has emerged in the past week?

[TornadoHibby]

Yes, I know all this. Which is why I raised the issue in the first place.

My point was.... did the auditors know about it at the time? If they did, what was their view on it? And is their view on it changed by the information that has emerged in the past week?

And here's me thinking that I might be able to help you answer questions which I thought that you were asking when, in fact, you are actually asking a question that I imagine only the auditors can aswer accurately! :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

And here's me thinking that I might be able to help you answer questions which I thought that you were asking when, in fact, you are actually asking a question that I imagine only the auditors can aswer accurately! :confused:

This is where this particular discussion started:-

I can only guess at what the auditors were hesitating over, but much of the material that has been uncovered over the past week must be helpful to them.

From there, it was conjecture and discussion.

[TornadoHibby]

This is where this particular discussion started:-

I can only guess at what the auditors were hesitating over, but much of the material that has been uncovered over the past week must be helpful to them.

From there, it was conjecture and discussion.

On something like this, that's my reason to bale out as there are people who will reveal the facts that can be revealed whenever it is time to do so and nothing I can do will change that! :wink: :greengrin

Enjoy! :wink:

[One Day Soon]

This is where this particular discussion started:-

I can only guess at what the auditors were hesitating over, but much of the material that has been uncovered over the past week must be helpful to them.

From there, it was conjecture and discussion.

I'm enjoying this thread hugely but there is a definite sense in which you and TH need to get a room. It feels like I'm reading fetish porn for accountants. Don't stop though!

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm enjoying this thread hugely but there is a definite sense in which you and TH need to get a room. It feels like I'm reading fetish porn for accountants. Don't stop though!

Get lost! It's gone 5 on a Friday....I'm off the clock :-P


That said....this is a bit heavenly for me. . Two parts of my life colliding in the most spectacularly horrendous way....love it:-)

[Benny Brazil]

I'm enjoying this thread hugely but there is a definite sense in which you and TH need to get a room. It feels like I'm reading fetish porn for accountants. Don't stop though!


:faf:

[HibeesLA]

I don't think a Celtc fan would have gates like these:

7943 :greengrin


I see he has a new location for the stadium right across the street though:

New Stadium Location?? (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=63+KENMORE+TERRACE+KIRKCALDY+SCOTLAND+KY2+6 EN&hl=en&ll=56.128153,-3.188803&spn=0.004006,0.013078&sll=56.127810,-3.189401&layer=c&cbp=13,159.07,,0,9.06&cbll=56.128109,-3.1889&hnear=63+Kenmore+Terrace,+Kirkcaldy+KY2+6EN,+Unite d+Kingdom&t=m&z=17&panoid=IK-A14easCF9rL13Zg7tsQ)

[CropleyWasGod]

I see he has a new location for the stadium right across the street though:

New Stadium Location?? (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=63+KENMORE+TERRACE+KIRKCALDY+SCOTLAND+KY2+6 EN&hl=en&ll=56.128153,-3.188803&spn=0.004006,0.013078&sll=56.127810,-3.189401&layer=c&cbp=13,159.07,,0,9.06&cbll=56.128109,-3.1889&hnear=63+Kenmore+Terrace,+Kirkcaldy+KY2+6EN,+Unite d+Kingdom&t=m&z=17&panoid=IK-A14easCF9rL13Zg7tsQ)

You do realise that this is going to be on Scotland Today on Monday? :greengrin STV get all their Whytegate exclusives from Hibs.net.

[ancienthibby]

You do realise that this is going to be on Scotland Today on Monday? :greengrin STV have already proven that they get all their Whytegate exclusives from Hibs.net.

There was a spoof soap opera that came out of the US in the early 80's (I think).

The voice over announcer used to give a full recap of the shenanigans that had happened in the previous episode and then posit a number of scenarios for the upcoming episode.

He then used to close off by saying: 'Confused? - you w'ont be!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHQT3Omqtw

Covers the Castle Greyskull soap opera perfectly!

[CropleyWasGod]

There was a spoof soap opera that came out of the US in the early 80's (I think).

The voice over announcer used to give a full recap of the shenanigans that had happened in the previous episode and then posit a number of scenarios for the upcoming episode.

He then used to close off by saying: 'Confused? - you w'ont be!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHQT3Omqtw

Covers the Castle Greyskull soap opera perfectly!

I'm as ancient as you, AH. It was called Soap :greengrin (insert Celtc gag here)

[ancienthibby]

I'm as ancient as you, AH. It was called Soap :greengrin (insert Celtc gag here)

If you watch the posted link, Mr Croppers, you will find that it was called SOAP.:agree:

You're ancient memory is obviously on a par with mine!:faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

If you watch the posted link, Mr Croppers, you will find that it was called SOAP.:agree:

You're ancient memory is obviously on a par with mine!:faf:

Wasn't it called Soap? :confused:

[Dashing Bob S]

Are Rangers in administration? Gosh! When did that happen?



Honestly, you think you know a great Scottish institution (who've had nothing to do with poisoning simpletons with sectarian hatred for years) and then something like this happens.

[TornadoHibby]

I'm enjoying this thread hugely but there is a definite sense in which you and TH need to get a room. It feels like I'm reading fetish porn for accountants. Don't stop though!

Can't help thinking that you've misread the signals ODS!! :wink: :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't help thinking that you've misread the signals ODS!! :wink: :greengrin

Bollox.... knocked back again. :boo hoo:

[green glory]

Agree if like me you'll never get tired of this thread.

GGTTH

[jonty]

I don't think a Celtc fan would have gates like these:

7943 :greengrin
Home to a scaffolding company
http://www.mylocalservices.co.uk/Fife/Scaffolding_and_Work_Platforms/2393780/STANDTALL_SCAFFOLDING_LTD.html
and recovery sScotland
http://www.local-buzz.co.uk/business/recovery-scotland-ltd-/2932034

[CropleyWasGod]

Home to a scaffolding company
http://www.mylocalservices.co.uk/Fife/Scaffolding_and_Work_Platforms/2393780/STANDTALL_SCAFFOLDING_LTD.html
and recovery sScotland
http://www.local-buzz.co.uk/business/recovery-scotland-ltd-/2932034

Stand Tall eh?

Sounds a bit Loyalist to me, eh no?

"Stand tall, boys. We don't do walking away"

:greengrin

[EuanH78]

Agree if like me you'll never get tired of this thread.

GGTTH

In an otherwise terrible season, this thread is a big shiny beacon of happy joy :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

In an otherwise terrible season, this thread is a big shiny beacon of happy joy :aok:

But how will it end???????:worried:

[EuanH78]

But how will it end???????:worried:

Well, given your area of expertise I'm pretty sure you have a better idea than most... but hopefully it ends in the cataclysmic destruction of the ahem 'institution' that is Rangers football club.

I'm in two minds whether I want it to happen quickly or not, I am enjoying ripping the Jarko out of every hun I meet (incuding the MD of the company I work for) I cant help myself, and it's doing my Karma no good at all I fear.

[StevieC]

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/


David Whitehouse, joint administrator said, “The Rangers fans have been absolutely tremendous over the last 10 days and it’s vital to the administration process that we continue to receive the support we have had thus far.

“Ibrox was sold out last Saturday and hopefully that can be the case for the rest of the season. The fans are clearly extremely loyal to Rangers and by coming to matches at Ibrox they are directly contributing to the Club’s future.

As I have pointed out before, in almost every administration of a football club I can recall, the administrators have not honoured the season tickets. Season ticket holders have paid for their seats “up front”. Legally therefore they are creditors of the insolvent company. The value of their remaining part of the season ticket falls to be a claim in the insolvency, should they choose to make it of course. It could be argued that an unfair preference is being given to the season ticket holders by the administrators. How many other suppliers are being paid for pre-administration debts?

IMO, I think the decision to honour season tickets (for the time being) is linked to the Ticketus deal. If they do not honour the season tickets then I think there is a real danger that tickets may not be bought for next season and that this could result in repurcussions from Ticketus. There is a chance that Rangers might come out of administration this time around, but go straight back into it once the "big tax case" is concluded. If they dont honour season tickets this season, they wont honour them if administration comes around again next season. Would you buy a season ticket if there was a chance it wouldn't be honoured? No season tickets, no funds over the summer, possible Ticketus issues, for me that spells major problems (not that current problems aren't already major).

Just my thoughts. Not based on any real knowledge of what's going on. :greengrin

[hibb1]

I canae help but think this is a"scare tactic"there trying so hard to make out how the world would be so much worse without them so that when big tax case comes around they get a more favourable outcome"for the better of the world"lol
I canae see any other outcome bar they manky fkrs come out smelling of roses

[cabbageandribs1875]

That's in T-Hall (Templehall) Kirkcaldy, not know for high flying solicitor types. Council scheme mostly.


i have a friend that lives in T-hall in kawdy :greengrin i'l try find out a bit more

[fatbloke]

http://newsmanc.co.uk/2012/02/15/news-council-plan-sponsored-city-trash-for-glasgow-rangers/

www.newsmanc.co.uk/2012/02/15/news-council-plan-sponsored-city-trash-for (http://www.newsmanc.co.uk/2012/02/15/news-council-plan-sponsored-city-trash-for)-
glasgow-rangers/

Pee yersel laughin time folks.

[Onion]

Administrators have been in the club for almost 2 weeks and yet not one Rangers player have been laid off?

The first role of the Admins, after securing the assets of the company, is to stop the company haemoraging money. In any other company, staff would have been pushed out the door within a day or two of the Admins walking in, yet these Admins appear happy for the club to continue paying high salaries with other people's money (i.e. our's/HMRC's). WTF is going on ?

This whole affair raises some serious questions about the rest of the pre-split games and validity if any games involving Rangers of Celtic from now on. Last week, Rangers were still playing for the title and had a full (overpaid) squad. In a few days time, they will be depleted and deflated, and any teams playing them now will have a clear advantage over those that had to play them pre-Administration.

This 10 point deduction might be fine for the Livi's and Gretna's, but doesn't come close to addressing the issues of a top 2 club "cheating".

[ancienthibby]

Administrators have been in the club for almost 2 weeks and yet not one Rangers player have been laid off?

The first role of the Admins, after securing the assets of the company, is to stop the company haemoraging money. In any other company, staff would have been pushed out the door within a day or two of the Admins walking in, yet these Admins appear happy for the club to continue paying high salaries with other people's money (i.e. our's/HMRC's). WTF is going on ?

This whole affair raises some serious questions about the rest of the pre-split games and validity if any games involving Rangers of Celtic from now on. Last week, Rangers were still playing for the title and had a full (overpaid) squad. In a few days time, they will be depleted and deflated, and any teams playing them now will have a clear advantage over those that had to play them pre-Administration.

This 10 point deduction might be fine for the Livi's and Gretna's, but doesn't come close to addressing the issues of a top 2 club "cheating".

At the very time you were posting, Jane Lewis was on Radio 5 Live saying that expectations now were that up to 30% of the playing staff would go. I also remember a snippet from earlier in the week saying that some lof the 16 and 17 year-olds were now training with the first team squad.

As Craikie White has already suggested that there is a £1 million cash shortfall every month, the cuts have to come.:agree:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

At the very time you were posting, Jane Lewis was on Radio 5 Live saying that expectations now were that up to 30% of the playing staff would go. I also remember a snippet from earlier in the week saying that some lof the 16 and 17 year-olds were now training with the first team squad.

As Craikie White has already suggested that there is a £1 million cash shortfall every month, the cuts have to come.:agree:

So good I'll sing it twice...

Rule Britannia!
Craig Whyte smiles and waves,
Britain never, never, never
shall get paid!

[IWasThere2016]

Players will go next week - least that's what's being said at Murray Park.